Post #69,268
12/17/02 7:14:17 AM
|
Reducing the tax burden on the truly Needy - New Econ/CPA
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59577-2002Dec15.html| Data] leads to a monumentally difficult choice, one which can only tear at the heart-strings of Any Compassionate Conservative .. Oh the Horror of the thought, but it is necessary in order to keep America Gross in its Domestic Product. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor.
The efforts would thrust the administration into a debate that until now has lingered on the fringes of economic policy: Are too few wealthy Americans paying too much in taxes for too many, and should the working poor and middle class be shouldering more of the tax burden?
"The increasing reliance on taxing higher-income households and targeted social preferences at lower incomes stands in the way of moving to a simpler, flatter tax system," R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned at a tax forum at the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday. Words Fail but [link|http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/12/09/tomo/index.html| This] will have to suffice. Tom Lehrer, Mark Twain, HL Mencken, WC Fields.. where Are You ??? IS THIS THING ON? check the date. "april 1" ? nope. Then WTF... When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy.
-Paul Richards
|
Post #69,272
12/17/02 7:51:20 AM
|
Morons
If they want to improve their tax base, maybe they ought to work harder at helping the lower incomes move up into the taxable bracket? Then we can tax them more heavily.
Nah, that makes sense.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #69,281
12/17/02 9:49:33 AM
|
Ah, but notice the wording.
I mention it because it's important.
They're shifting the tax burden.
They're not raising taxes.
Interesting no?
|
Post #69,305
12/17/02 11:59:40 AM
|
Tell you what then...
...reduce the size of government by 40% and you can free 95% of the country from paying any taxes at all. The top 5% already pay for 60% of government spending...and since they should be the only ones paying (well thats obvious from your viewpoint)...then we're all happy. \r\n\r\nAfter all, we know that its only the superrich that use government services.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
\r\n[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #69,413
12/17/02 5:18:49 PM
|
Reductio? so soon..
Yes, Beep - one does Feel for that 13,000 \ufffd :(
those folks who receive as much of the GDP as - the 20,000,000 at the Lower.. end of the shtick: soon to be Higher umm 'taxed' down there (to pay for $8B Repo ABMs, new Lone-Eagle First-Strike Warz n'stuff..)
Yep them last Librul Republicrats sure left a Fiscal Mess to the New Conservatives! -- Hey, The Compassionate Folk rilly Know what to do with a surplus! and in just a year or two. (Econ is more fun that Monopoly with 2 Hotels and loaded dice.)
I Know.. I Know..
The Market Will Correct; just after it Takes Care of Its Own
When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy.
-Paul Richards
|
Post #69,379
12/17/02 3:41:34 PM
|
Genetically bred for a single term.
Cool. Now, all his opponents have to do during the election is to show this and it's "buh bye, Bush". The Treasury Department is working up more sophisticated distribution tables that are expected to make the poor appear to be paying less in taxes and the rich to be paying more. "appear"? Answering critics who say the working poor do face high taxes because they pay high Social Security payroll taxes, outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated. Lindsey said the Social Security tax is ultimately returned to the taxpayer as a benefit. So, it isn't a tax if you MIGHT collect it later. Or if someone you know might collect it. Or if someone you don't know might collect it. Lindsey compared the Social Security tax to a deposit in a neighborhood bank's Christmas Club. In such clubs, periodic deposits are returned in a lump sum during the holiday season, and Lindsey said no one would consider such deposits a tax. *boggle* But if I were to die, then the money in that account would go to whomever I want to receive it. Yet, if I die, the money in my SocSec "Christmas Club" won't. Unless they meet governmental guidelines. Ummm, no. I'm not seeing how they're the same. Early this month, J.T. Young, the deputy assistant treasury secretary for legislative affairs, lamented in a Washington Times opinion article: "[Higher] earners cannot produce the level of revenues needed to sustain the liberals' increasingly costly spending programs over the long-term. . . . If federal government spending is not controlled, then the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder." Ummm, isn't it Bush who's running up the debt right now? He's a "liberal"? But for the purposes of a tax reform debate, removing Social Security taxes from consideration could have a sizable impact. The top 5 percent of the nation's taxpayers paid 41 percent of all federal taxes, a hefty share, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that same group paid from 56 to 59 percent of all income taxes, an even more impressive burden. Impressive. But how much of the wealth does that 5% hold? It they hold more than 59% of the wealth, they're being under taxed. But to some conservatives, the shift is long overdue. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has argued for two years that the nation is entering a dangerous period in which the burden of financing government is falling on too few people. Fucking right! We have far too much of our wealth concentrated in too few individuals. We need to counter this concentration. In such an environment, the masses will always vote for politicians promising ever-more-generous social programs, knowing they will not have to pay for such programs, DeMint warned. Ummm, wasn't there a lot of public opposition to Bush's tax "rebate"?
|
Post #69,380
12/17/02 3:53:39 PM
|
Also, no mention of Sales Taxes.
The Feds don't get the collected sales tax, but it's a tax burden!
Alex
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
|
Post #69,414
12/17/02 5:20:28 PM
|
And befitting the cabal; the most regressive form of all.
When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy.
-Paul Richards
|
Post #69,420
12/17/02 5:28:12 PM
|
Forgot that one.
Yep.
In fact, we need to total ALL the taxes (sales, usage, fees, whatever) and determine how best to spread the taxes amongst the.....
!!!DOLLARS!!!
Not the people.
That's right. If you have 10x the dollars of another person, why shouldn't you pay 10x the taxes?
So, what's the TOTAL TAX needed to run the country/state/city/? and what's the TOTAL WEALTH residing in the country/state/city/?
Then so the simple math.
Is there any reason (moral / philosophical / religous / whatever) for someone with 10x the money you have NOT to pay AT LEAST 10x the taxes you pay?
|
Post #70,055
12/19/02 10:10:40 PM
|
Updike was there almost 50 years ago
In his story "Who Made Yellow Roses Yellow," published in the mid-1950s:
"Good morning, sir. I represent the Society for the Propogation and Eventual Adoption of the A.D. Spooner Graduated Income Tax Plan. As perhaps you know, this plan calls for an income tax which increases in inverse proportion to income, so that the wealthy are exempted and the poor taxed out of existence. Within five years, Mr. Spooner estimates, poverty would be eliminated; within ten a thing not even of memory."
The Wall Street Journal should stand reproached for its timidity.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
