"So the "trillion-dollar tax cut" has become $2.5 trillion and counting — which means
that Mr. Bush can pay for initiatives like missile defense and prescription drug
coverage only by raiding Social Security and Medicare.
Last week Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services, tried to allay
suspicions about such a raid by offering his personal assurance that the money
Medicare has been accumulating to care for the baby boomers will not be diverted
into other uses — even though Mr. Bush includes that money in his "contingency
fund." But Mr. Thompson admitted that it isn't really up to him — and the
administration's allies in the Senate blocked a measure that would have made Mr.
Thompson's promise binding. Somehow I'm not reassured.
The latest news is that Mr. Bush wants additional tax cuts this year to stimulate the
economy; he has apparently just realized that cuts that will take 10 years to phase in
won't do anything to increase spending today. This will add hundreds of billions to
the budget cost of his plan. You might think that he would admit that this increases
the cost of his tax cut, and perhaps that he would offer to scale back those future tax
cuts. Not a chance: administration officials claim that tax cuts this year don't affect
their arithmetic because their budget is for 2002 through 2011, so what happens this
year doesn't count. I am not making this up.
The important point is that the estimated cost of the tax cut hasn't exploded because
of new information; it has exploded because the original estimates were simply
dishonest. Mr. Bush knew from the start that he was misleading the public about the
budget impact of his proposals, just as he knows that he is misleading people now
about whose taxes will be cut and by how much. This contractor didn't make an
honest error; he deliberately deceived the homeowner."
posted on March 18, 2001 01:55:16 PM new
So Who's getting away with not paying their Fair Share of taxes??
According to that article, the Upper-Middle Class is.
And a MINIMUM TAX -- which I am all for, will affect 1/3 of taxpayers to make the pay their Fair Share?
Hey!
How come +I+ don't get to pay less than MY Fair Share, huh?
What the article doesn't say is the obvious: for missle defence programs and prescription coverage the money must be raided from social security -- what about that WOPPING 43% PAY-OFF TO THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS?
Opps! Suggesting that the Top 1% NOT get their UNDESERVED 43% LION'S SHARE of the tax cut is just too . . . too "Democractic".
I want a Flat Tax. That's both a Maximum Tax AND a Minimum Tax combined. Get rid of ALL deductions and set the Flat Tax Rate at 10%. What Would Happen?
ALL taxes and fees would be combined into ONE TAX.
90% of the IRS workers would be out of a job, so would 90% of the CPAs and Tax Consultants, Tax Lawyers, etc.
The current 44,000-page Tax Code would become one paragraph on a single page.
Everyone's income Tax Form would consist for only 4 lines:
line 1: Total your Income
line 2: Subtract 10% from line 1
line 3: Enter taxes already sent in for this year
line 4: Subtract the amount from line 2 from line 3.
>>PHEW!<< Wouldn't THAT be exhausting?
NO MORE TAX CHEATS!
This hurts the poor? Raise the minimum taxable income level upwards.
It would need a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen.
++edited for spelling by ME++
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 18, 2001 01:59 PM ]
Three quarters of all US households pay more in federal payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, than they pay in federal income taxes. But there has been no proposal from Bush for any cut in this tax, which is by far the most regressive tax imposed by the federal government.
Unlike the income tax, which is graduated, the payroll tax is calculated as a flat percentage of income. Moreover, the payroll tax is levied only on the first $70,000 or so in income. This ceiling means that for high income taxpayers, the payroll tax is a much lower proportion of their income than for middle and lower income families—barely 1 percent for a millionaire, compared to 15.3 percent for the average worker.
By maintaining unchanged the tax which weighs most heavily on working people and cutting those taxes which affect the rich, the Bush plan amounts to a redistribution of income from the bottom to the top. According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the top 1 percent of income earners would get a bigger tax cut than the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers combined.
posted on March 18, 2001 03:01:15 PM new
Boy, what a sad article!
You know the real reason why the republicans want to push the wealth of this nation into the hands of a few is to destroy our government.
You see, the purpose of this governement is to allow its citizens to participate in the process, to allow them to control the reigns of power given to the few that are entrusted with it.
In all of history, everytime a FEW control EVERYTHING to their benefit. Reading history, you'll see that these few enjoyed such pasttimes as attacking their neighbor in their greed, forcing the population to go nearly unarmed to a battlefield -- where the wealthy and priveleged were well armored and protected, just so that they had an excuse to butcher people. It was a SPORT, with RULES no less!
THAT's how much the FEW care about the MANY.
But this country is run by the MANY, or, at least, it was. The FEW could not hope to OWN EVERYTHING and CONTROL EVERYONE with this popular government in place. So, it had to go!
Enter in the Republicans. Not the Old Republicans: most of them resigned or took early retirement once Bush Sr. announced his New World Order. Nope, the Old Guard passed away and this new breed came into power: the puppets of the FEW.
The purpose of these republican puppets has been to destroy our government. Since 1992, they have deadlocked the government, making the business of legislation and whatnot come to a complete halt. Then, these same republicans would put out a similar piece of legislation that was absolutely worthless: no enforcement of new laws, so many loopholes that it was a joke. But that wasn't enough.
Now they control nearly the entire government. With the help of totally bought-out democracts they want to give all our wealth to the FEW. This will end up with the government working not for the MANY, but for the FEW.
Well, it was a nice 200 years of the MANY having their way! Short of a full-scale revolution to overthrow the bastards there in Washington, you and I won't be able to do anything about it.
posted on March 18, 2001 06:08:15 PM newgravid: Thank you for the warning. However, I am more concerned about AW Moderators taking those words out of context in order to falsely reprimand me (see CGs 3.2C and 9.6 to see what I mean) than I am that the government would care about my opinons. Although, I've been thinking about starting the American Revolutionary Party (ARP) with the goal of marching on Washington en mass, arresting the members of Congress and the Legislative branch, and restoring democracy back into the hands of the people.
Don't forget the judicial branch, they have managed over time to usurp some of the power that was vest in Congress to levy taxes,(taxation without representation)or(random taxation) I can assure you that was not the intentions of the framers of the constitution.
posted on March 18, 2001 11:37:03 PM new
Go'way! Don' bother me! I'm busy sharpening up the blades on my collection of French Guillotein.
I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. . . . It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 30 Jan. 1787, to statesman James Madison.
posted on March 19, 2001 12:37:03 AM new
The revolutionist must combine the personal revolt of the Bohemian, the scathing criticism of the satirist, the hopful vision of a better world to come of the utopian, the constructive development of new societal forms of the communitarian, and the theoretical perspective of history of the traditional revolutionary if he is to deal meaningfully with the problems of a rapidly changing world.
We must seek to live our entire lives as revolutionists; else we shall perish, either deadened and coopted by the system we oppose or driven insane.
Paul Spencer
posted on March 19, 2001 07:18:02 AM new
(Yawn) We've been wishing/hoping for a straight 10% for years and years and years. Ain't ever gonna happen! It makes too much sense, saves too much money, and is fair to everybody.
I kinda side with the y2k hopefuls. If it had come down bad, so would have the government. But a lot of innocent people would have been hurt too.
posted on March 19, 2001 07:22:02 AM new
A letter:
"..In a later campaign stop (oh, sorry, speech on his tax proposal) President Busch introduced the Gotrocks family, Mr. Tycoon Gotrocks, his lovely wife "Shopper," and his perky children Debenture and Coupon. President Busch told the crowd that the Gotrocks family paid a "disproportionate amount" of their yearly income of twelve million dollars in taxes each year, and that their tax savings "would amount to real money for this family". Mr. Busch estimated that under his tax plan, the Gotrocks family would be able to keep an additional $720,000 each year. Mr. Gotrocks then stepped to the podium to tell the crowd that he was keenly looking forward to having that "extra bit" of additional income each year, as it would allow him to afford another "really classy" mistress. "Shopper" Gotrocks then spoke movingly of several items of jewelry that she believed could come her way, to compensate her for the mistress. The children looked bored, but really, what can one expect from kids who pretty much get anything and everything they ask for already? No, on balance, it was a deeply moving illustration of just the kind of average American family who will really stand to gain from President Busch's tax plan!" --AL,
