Bush oversees largest increase in federal spending in 35 years

That's why he got on my ignore list in about a week. He just so aggressively idiotic. It's like he's doing a parody of the ignorant right winger who, despite demonstrating over and over again that he doesn't know anything about anything, is sure he's right.

 

Michael,
I can't protect you from people insulting you for this comment, but I can give you a chance to rethink it.

When you quoted a federal Internal Revenue Service statistic to represent "ALL" taxes, did you include sales taxes, payroll taxes, state taxes, gasoline, cigarette, and other taxes, etc., many of which are notoriously regressive?

Think it through, and you'll see where your mathematical error originated.

 

Not to mention Soc Serc which has a cap at about $60,000 in salary. That is, when the head of the NYSE pays himself $140 million he certainly couldn't contribute to soc serc at the same rate as say a school teacher, it would be a lot of money. He pays as if he made $60,000.

Bush eliminated estate tax. It used to be about 50% on inheritances over a couple of million. The first million was a free transfer, and all of it could be escaped with tax planner. But sh!t, the heirs to big fortunes like "Kenny Boy" Lays may actually have to contribute. We can't have that! I mean what's the point of being born on third base if your subject to taxation like the little people?

 

OK, provide me with a study that shows who pays those taxes.

I didn't do any math, so I don't know what "mathematical" error you are talking about.

I will admit that I should not have said all taxes, I should have said all federal income taxes, which is what I thought we were talking about. And nobody has corrected those numbers, or provided proof for their asserion that taxes are "de facto flat"

I would think that most state income taxes are also progressive like the federal income tax. Of course most sales taxes excempt many of the staples of life like food and clothing, which should be a larger percentage of a poor person's spending than a rich person, so sales taxes are likely to be progressive also.

As far as gasoline and cigarette taxes, you are right. I think they are terribly regressive taxes and I do not support them. (I would add lotteries to this category)

Social security is a completely different animal, and when it was proposed it was not supposed to be a general tax. It is a program that everyone has to be a part of. If you ask a rich person, or a poor person if they wanted to opt out of it, which one do you think would?

 

Of course dividends are payed out by companies when they are successful. Reducing taxation on dividends would encourage investors to buy stock and invest in the economy.

One of the largest groups effected by estate taxes are small business owners trying to pass on a family business. I think someone else already mentioned in this thread that we need to do more to help small business.

I also seem to remember getting checks in the mail from the federal government because I have three children. That check came in very useful in my middle class household.

 

And you are like the parody of the arrogant left winger who is so sure he is smarter than everyone else, that he blames the general public for being to stupid to see the "truth".

 

OK,

Please explain to me how the standard deduction does not cause the effective tax rate for people in a lower income bracket to be lower than people in a higher income bracket?

 

http://www.reason.com/sullum/111403.shtml

biglibertarianism.com AKA Reason Magazine also points out that Bush is no conservative.

It's not in this article, but in another article, Reason pointed out that libertarians might as well vote for Nader.

Nader would spend less money and Mr Unsafe At Any Speed might make certain Libertarian Refreshments legal.

 

John Galt already explained this. I'm not going to spin my wheels, but here's a hint: equating income taxation with taxation as a whole is simpy wrong.

 

That's always been the greatest success of the GOP - getting people to vote against their own economic interests.

 

The Greens and the Libs should join forces, if for no other reason than to become the anti-two-party party. I took Matt in the Hat's political matrix quiz and ended up in the special corner as either a left-wing liberterian or a liberterian progressive.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Of course,neither Greens nor Libs could organize a trip to the bathroom, much less the White House.

 

Blue skinned Libertarians aside, it doesn't matter how organized you are if you are routinely shut out of the political process by "bipartisan" debate commissions.

Now before I end up on a thread hijack, Bush's spending record is pitiful. A couple of federal agencies should have been stripped of their funding according to past promises from the GOP, but instead we get DHS and pills for Bill Gates when he becomes a geezer. To paraphrase Bruce Cambell "They aint' doing but two things; Jack and sh!t. And Jack left town." Looks like I'll be voting for the Libertarians next year.

 

So this is the face of libertarian leadership?

Let the streaming media load up, and then click "play video."

http://64.70.49.107/x2dvd/

 

No John posted a theory, but gave no numbers to back it up.

Let's go back to the original contentoin by Gringo Tex that there was a defacto 18% flat tax rate.

I pointed out that the federal income tax rate itself for people in the to 1% was 27.5%.

I mistakenly made the error of saying total taxes, when I should have said income taxes, but how can someone pay 27.5% of their income in federal income taxes, yet only pay total taxes of 18%.

You guys have this theory that other more regressive taxes make up the difference, but you have yet to provide any hard proof of that claim.

The fact is that many of those other types of taxes are much more difficult to assign directly to specific individuals, so obviously people who have political axes to grind can make assuptions on these issues to try to make their case.

I would consider eliminating some of the most regressive taxes, but unfortunately those are the Cigerette and Gasoline taxes that the Liberals love so much.

The other problem is the Social Security system. How many Liberals want to suggest dumping the whole social security idea and just making mayments to elderly a regular program paid out of the general fund?

 

Mine actually looks about right

 

I've taken that quiz and landed where Roel did. I think the questions are slightly gamed to skew results towards the "libertarian" quadrent.

 

I didn't make the number up, it came directly from the IRS. You seem to be living under this falacy that the "rich" are some far out class of people like Bill Gates.

In 2001 there were about 128,800,000 tax returns filed, so the top 1% is 1,280,000 returns. Do you really think there are over a million Bill Gates's running around this country?

The average adjusted gross income on the top 1% of returns in 2001 was $292,913.

Sure you can find the example of the rich people who take advantage of loopholes to avoid taxes, but my guess is that is the exception more than they rule. I bet a lot of the "rich" people in this country are probably small to medium size business owners. Many of them are probably people who put their lifes blood and sweat into their business.

I may be wrong, but I haven't seen any information out of you "the rich don't pay their fare share" crowd to justify these claims, and the only regressive tax examples they give are the left's favorite programs.

The other falacy is that when the rich exploit "loopholes" they are somehow avoiding paying their "fair" share.

Let's say the government decides to give tax credits to a rich person for developing properties in former "brown fields". An idea I would think the left would think is a good one.

The rich person may compare the cost of developing a project on a site without the tax break but that is shovel ready, to the one with the tax break that may need expensive clean up. If the tax break offsets the extra cost of cleaning up the "brownfield" site, they may choose to take the tax break and do the clean up. But in essence the extra cost of choosing the "brownfield" site over the other site was a tax (in absence of the tax break he would have chosen the shovel ready site and paid the tax but still had more money in his pocket).

I can tell you this. I certainly don't consider myself rich, and ever since Bush has been president I received rebate checks due to the retroactive child credits that were passed, and I just read in USA today that I should expect an even bigger tax refund this year, and that I will be a major benificiarry of the Bush tax cuts.

OTOH, How many of you really believe the tax relief for the "rich" that is scheduled to happen in the future will really happen?


BTW, I toook the quiz and I ended up as a centrist.