The point that seems to be missed by the pro-Bush in this thread is that whilst he has acknowledged these loopholes exist, he has no intention of exposing them...

Huh? Wasn't he quoted as exposing them? Not specifically, but he at least has the honesty to point out the obvious. It's Congress, remember, which creates and perpetuates these loopholes you're bashing Bush for. He's on your side & you don't see it. He's not saying "The rich dodge taxes, get over it & deal with it", he's at least opening the door to a discussion of how our tax code is broken.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Where did this myth come from? I don't believe there is any such tax policy which rewards companies for shipping jobs to India or anywhere else,

Here is just an example....."While corporate America is selling out the working people of this country and moving millions of jobs abroad, the taxpayers of this country continue to provide tens of billions a year in corporate welfare - loans, loan guarantees, grants, low-cost insurance and tax breaks - to the very same corporations that are throwing American workers out on the street."

" Since 2001, General Motors laid off 37,500 workers and invested $3.5 billion building manufacturing plants in China , while receiving over $500 million from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, $9.1 million from the Advanced Technology Program, and more than $8.5 million from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. GM has recently announced that it will be buying $6 billion in auto parts from China every year, up from $2.8 billion last year." ~ Rep. Bernie Sanders

I don't think there is really any problem exposing them, since tax law is publicly accessable and every CPA in America is pretty well grounded in all of them. It isn't some secret. Every major metropolitan area in America has a handful of millionaires and many more businesses that take advantage of them.

I think you are overlooking the fact, again, that the Senate makes law, and the Senate is far, far more influenced by interests and the whims of the affluent. I don't think you even have to address the morality of the tax loopholes in question to see that the basic vibe of this statement is flawed. Bush simply acknowledged the loopholes were there, a fact that everyone, in America and outside it, knows.

If Americans were hell-bent to get tax laws changed, they could overwhelmingly respond and get attention. The fact is, though, that as a "movement" no one is really all that steamed about it. If you look at people like Steve Forbes and others who have propsed a 17% or so "flat tax", you'll realize that the tax burden on them now is something along the lines of 50% of their income.

No offense intended, Muggaz, but this reads a lot like social commentary by our "Canadian Friends" here at JU. 99% of the time when someone from outside the US exposes some scandalous fact about the US, most of us already know, and really don't give it much thought.

I don't think some of you have thought this through to its logical conclusion. The tax system is already full of exceptions all the way down the line.

I agree. If "fairness" is to be the standard, a consumption-based tax is the "most" fair and, in Adam Smith's scheme of things, the most likely to perpetuate self-beneficial economic behavior since we are able to make informed, conscious economic decisions with a consumption-based tax, whereas success is very much a two-edged sword with an income-based tax system. I realize that a smaller portion of our total tax burden comes from income taxes than most of us realize, but that just supports the notion that transitioning to a completely consumption-based tax system would not be that disruptive.

I also wonder what might happen if suddenly we were given back control over our money again (it is "ours", after all) - how much more might that fuel the economic engine?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Despite that, the trend to "offshoring" as many call it is actually a tiny fraction of jobs, far fewer than the cassandra's would like us to believe

Well you obviously dont live in an area where thousands of people are looking for work because they lost their middle class jobs to "offshoring" and are having to work at a supermarket at minimum wage.

I just have to give one example - "Earthlink" sent off shore around 3000 jobs. That in turn has flooded the market with unemployed workers that cant find work.
I was fortunate to still have a job but 70% of my friends and family were out of work for a year and have finally found work in retail. About 1/2 of what they were making.

What we do know, however, is that the wealthy pay lots of taxes. Lots more than the average person (even as a percentage of income). And they receive the same (or less) services than everyone else.

No matter how you cut it, if I make $4000 dollars a month and only see $2000, it is not the same as someone who makes 8 million a month and only takes home 4 million. Even though the percentage is the same, he can buy 10 more houses than I can where I could not even by one. The difference lies in the fact that he can end up writing off much more because of loopholes and thus ends up paying a smaller percentage of his total income.

As for the services, if the rich guys house was burning down and my house was burning down at the same time, I should get the priority to have my house saved because I pay a higher percentage of taxes. We all know that wont happen.

Huh? Wasn't he quoted as exposing them? Not specifically, but he at least has the honesty to point out the obvious

I don't think you know the same George W. Bush as I do...

People have known about loopholes as long as any tax system has worked anywhere... George W. Bush let's his policy do the talking, acknowledging that the REALLY rich get away with murder as far as tax goes, and realising that the small business owners of America make up most of the wealth, so they are the ones that are 'suffering' as far as tax goes...

Thus resulting in his plan to seek approval from congress to make his temproaray tax cuts permanent for these people.

The picture I have painted in front of me, is the Gazillionaires paying no way near what they should, and the upper middle class have to step up and pay taxes in their place... The upper middle class are always whinging how they pay their fair share of taxes on behalf of the poor, but really, they are making up for the excessively rich - So, George Bush proposes Tax cuts for these people, and the welfarew system suffers... that's the George Bush I know.

BAM!!!

"acknowledging that the REALLY rich get away with murder as far as tax goes, and realising that the small business owners of America make up most of the wealth"

Sure, today you say this. Next week when it serves your purposes we'll be back to the " top 2% of the population holds the vast majority of the wealth" argument. The fact is these same people you are talking about pay the vast majority of TAXES in the US.

I think this is one of those times that opinion outweighs facts. If you look at how much the wealthy are taxed, you'll understand these loopholes aren't as big as you think. Sure, it may be really egregious for a few, but when the wealthy are condemned to pay 50% of their yearly income, dodging 10 or 20% of it isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be.

If you were here, making $500,000 a year, and the government consistantly sent you a bill for $250,000 dollars, you'd ask yourself why they were picking on you, ESPECIALLY since people like you are the ones spending the most money and employing all the rest of us.

when the wealthy are condemned to pay 50% of their yearly income, dodging 10 or 20% of it isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be.

If I could dodge 20% of my taxes... I probably would as well... but it is felt a whole lot more when someone who makes 5000% more than me dodges 20% of their taxes.

You could look at it from the Rich's perspective as well... I mean, they are hiring the middle class, who will pay in tax what they as corporate owners shirk right? Just because they are hiring people - who in turn pay their own taxes, does not excuse them for exploiting loopholes.

BAM!!!

" Since 2001, General Motors laid off 37,500 workers and invested $3.5 billion building manufacturing plants in China , while receiving over $500 million from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, $9.1 million from the Advanced Technology Program, and more than $8.5 million from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. GM has recently announced that it will be buying $6 billion in auto parts from China every year, up from $2.8 billion last year." ~ Rep. Bernie Sanders

There's nothing in that statement about tax breaks. Sounds like a couple of really nifty enviro programs, though, which might be construed by some as tax breaks disguised as *incentives*. Isn't it interesting how the social engineers want to use government to encourage/coerce certain behaviors, but when companies actually take them up on it they get accused of hogging tax breaks. The law of unintended consequences invariably comes back to bite. Can't win for losin'. And I suspect Hyundia, Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Lexus, Acura, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes and a few others had a lot more to do with those 35,000 layoffs than any tax breaks. A correlation or co-existence of two things does not prove a cause-effect relationship.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Mugazz -

How exactly is it that the top 5% are "getting away with murder" by paying 50% of the total tax take? You saying it should be 75%? 80%? 90%? What? The more you tax it the less incentive there is to earn it. And the fact is, the majority of that 5% are not the Rockefellers and Kennedys of the world just sitting on their oil, bootlegging or railroad fortunes accumulated ages ago, which is the caricature of the rich the left would like us to carry in our heads. It is the Larry Ellisons, Steve Jobs's, Dave Thomas's, Steve Ballmers, Brad Pitts, Don Henleys, and Jerry Colangelos of the world, to name but a few, along with countless others, who mostly started with little or nothing and achieved that tired old American dream, success, creating in some cases entire industries employing literally thousands and thousands of people who could then send their kids off to college. We should all be grateful to that class of individuals for their contributions to our economy & standard of living, not constantly berating them as greedy, shameless robber barons.

So endeth the rant.

Cheers,
Daiwa

There seems to be a basic disconnect here.

The first question should be, what is the ethical basis for saying that one person should pay 10X more for the same services as another person?

I don't recall the government assigning me my job. I don't appreciate some third party trying to tell me how much money is "enough".

Most people I know who are rich work their butts off.  They are people who are really REALLY good at what it is they do. And in their wake they create millions of jobs.  Any sane government is going to want to ensure that these people have a big incentive to keep doing the stuff they do.

I'm in that top 5% presently but since I'm "only" 33 I haven't acquired that much in assets (i.e. income + time is needed).  My incentive to keep doing what I do is partially based on being able to provide a better life for my family.  This year we rented a cottage up north. It was a dank little cottage. But maybe in a couple years I'll be able to afford to buy a cottage at the lake. That provides me an incentive to keep working hard towards that goal. And in my case, when I work hard, jobs are created.

There is also the risk element. There is a significant stress to having your financial destiny totally in your hands. There has to be a significant reward in exchange for that risk and stress. If you take it away, then people like me who create jobs have less icentive to keep doing that and go find a "regular" job.

So if you end up with some high elite council of elders who says how much we all should have, then you will have, in effect, made everyone a lot poorer because the acquisition of wealth is a significant motivator for many people (in my case, wealth is a means to an end - long term financial security with the ability to provide a better life for my family). And if you take away that motivation, you end up with a lot fewer jobs.

Hi!

If you look at people like Steve Forbes and others who have propsed a 17% or so "flat tax", you'll realize that the tax burden on them now is something along the lines of 50% of their income.

The top 5% pay 53.3% of the tax. No one disputes this. The top 5% also generate 32% of total adjusted income. Put simply, they make 32% of the cash and pay 53.3% of the tax. Here's how it breaks down:

Group's Share of Total AGI Group's Share of Income Taxes Average Tax Rate

Top 1% 17.5% 33.9% 27.5%
Top 5% 32.0% 53.3% 23.7%
Top 10% 43.1% 64.9% 21.4%
Top 25% 65.2% 82.9% 18.1%
Top 50% 86.2% 96.1% 15.9%
Bottom 50% 13.8% 3.9% 4.1%

Even the top 1% pay an average (not marignal, but average i.e. total, real, etc.) tax rate of 27.5%, or roughly half of the 50% figure claimed by BakerStreet above. The top 5% pay an average tax rate of 23.7%.
Link
I don't know what you guys are arguing about. Tax cheating is good? Offshoring is bad? Knock yourselves out, just get your figures straight. The rich do pay higher taxes. This is known as 'vertical equity': 'the principle that people with a greater ability to pay should hand over more tax to the government than those with a lesser ability to pay.' Link

Offshore banking is a reality that is not reflected in these figures. On that subject, I have found this site useful in the past: http://www.escapeartist.com/taxhavens/taxhavens.htm . You can make up your own mind.

No offense intended, Muggaz, but this reads a lot like social commentary by our "Canadian Friends" here at JU

Love you too, Bake Notice the near-perfect negative correlation between the actual truth and your words:

when the wealthy are condemned to pay 50% of their yearly income

If you were here, making $500,000 a year, and the government consistantly sent you a bill for $250,000 dollars

bakerstreet is gay
pounding on the ass of truth
thrusting hips and all

I don't believe there is any such tax policy which rewards companies for shipping jobs to India or anywhere else

There is. Kerry has a proposal regarding that. Here's the first link off of google, I don't have time to look for a comprehensive page on the issue right now.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/26/news/economy/election_kerry_corporatetaxes/

Do you have children? Is it fair that people with children got a $500 per child tax credit last year and people without children don't? Is it fair that people get to claim dependents? Why should Joe and Jane married childless couple be taxed more than Bill and Jill married with 5 kids?

It's not fair, and I don't approve of any of these. Are you saying you approve of this kind of social engineering? I certainly don't. I don't want the government telling me how to behave, and I don't want the governemnt bribing me either.

But while I disapprove of social engineering, it isn't nearly so bad as the narrowly focused tax cuts that are meant to benefit a specific industry or, more honestly, a specific campaign contributer, and are common as a political tool. With those, there's barely the pretense of benefit to the national economy, whereas with social engineering you can at least pretend that you're trying to encourage "good" behaviors.

David, I agree with your stats and I read it like this:

The rich only make 32% of the wealth but pay 53% of the taxes.  In a more fair system, they'd be paying 32% of the taxes.

This isn't an article about who pay's what... it's a article about George W. Bush's recognition of the loophole, yet lack of desire to close loopholes. If it were Kerry in power - it would probably be about him and his lack of desire to close loopholes

Brad, what you fail to see is that I am all for tax breaks for people who create wealth and jobs... this isn't about tax breaks, it's about tax loopholes...

Tax is most definitely the most difficult task of any government, but it is still a task that needs to be addressed, and I get the vibe that it isn't being addressed appropriately. I dont think anyone should pay more or less tax, I just think the ability to avert said taxes should be cracked down on...

so does everyone though? right?

BAM!!!

No offense intended, Muggaz, but this reads a lot like social commentary by our "Canadian Friends" here at JU. 99% of the time when someone from outside the US exposes some scandalous fact about the US, most of us already know, and really don't give it much thought.

None taken mate... It's a lot easier to criticise standing on the outside looking in... but it's only because we love our American buddies so much, and we fear for their wellbeing, and obviously nothing is being done internally, so we feel the need to point it out again... you know, rattle a few cages

A happy American is a happy global population!!!

BAM!!!

So if Kerry had said "Rich people figure out how to dodge taxes", a statement that Democratic candidates assert all the time, you would assume they're complaining.  But Bush saying the same thing means he doesn't want to do anything about it?

Talk to the Kennedy's of the world and the kerry's who make use of those loopholes and happen to have the power to do something about it why they hvaen't done something about it over the past decade.

Muggaz -

Not to be too cynical, but the principal difference between a tax break and a tax loophole is the beneficiary - it's a very subjective, artificial distinction and the term applied usually depends on whether it benefits you or not. Sometimes the only difference between a savvy taxpayer and a tax cheat lies in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on which side of the bread gets the butter. And so forth.

And I'm just grateful you Auzzie's are taking an interest in us at all.

Cheers,
Daiwa

But Bush saying the same thing means he doesn't want to do anything about it?

It's in his policy.... you cant speculate about the Kerry, because he isn't in power... yet... Have you seen any positive steps taken by Bush to address the problem? Do you think it is a problem Brad? or are you happy with these people filling their personal bank accounts, while small business owners like YOU are always complaining that they pay too much tax? Next time you write an article complaining about how you pay too much tax, I ask you to remember the Kerry's and the Kennedys...

And I'm just grateful you Auzzie's are taking an interest in us at all.

Hehe... it's freaken Aussie's!!! not Auzzie!!! Thanks for your comments Daiwa - I have enoyed reading your resonable and well thought out responses!!!

BAM!!!

It's in his policy.... you cant speculate about the Kerry, because he isn't in power... yet...

Muggaz, those times when I don't think you're a particularly sharp stick come up when you say things like the above.

Where exactly do you think John Kerry has been for the past 19 years? In the US Senate.  Where are these tax laws made? In the Senate. 19 years isn't enough? I mean, heck, Kerry, being a billionaire and all, would be an excellent person to have proposed a law to stop these "loopholes" since his wife's family has made extensive use of things such as trust funds and other tax sheltering devices. 

The thing about "loopholes" is that they're expensive to maintain at the levels that will save a lot of money.  It's a matter of keeping the tax rate lower than the cost of making use of them.  Raise my taxes to 50%, for instance, and I suspect there are ways where I could get an effective tax rate of 45% by using some sort of accounting scheme. 

But where it is, currently, at 33% or whatever, there are no "loopholes" that do better than simply paying the taxes. That was Bush's point.

The tax rate during the Carter years was something like 70%. And when Reagan brought it down to the low 30s, government income actually INCREASED.  Why? Because rather than people messing around with complicated tax shelters with all the inherent waste, they just paid the taxes.

I do everything I can to keep my taxes less. But I still pay tons in taxes.  But raise them high enough and suddenly there'd be a "company cottage" and a "company X" and "Company Y" and so forth as you get into creative accounting to write things off that you wouldn't normally write off.  Right now, it's not worth doing that because I'd rather re-invest that money into the company since the taxes are low.  But raise taxes high and then it becomes a "if I don't spend it, the government will just take it so I'll find things to spend it on."

 

Muggaz -

My HTML tags ain't working with the browser I'm using just now.

The AuZZie thing was a small joke. And thanks for stimulating an interesting discussion, even if we disagree.

G'Day
Daiwa

Muggaz, those times when I don't think you're a particularly sharp stick come up when you say things like the above.

Yes Brad, I am very daft.

I have said it a million times... I dont care what John Kerry is doing in the senate... how many US senators are there? yet you isolate him because he is the running candidate against Bush... don't incinuate that I am dense by twisting my words to suit your needs.

George W. Bush represents the United States of America as the figurehead - so essentially, the buck stops with him. I dont blame the US senate for going to Iraq, I blame George W. Bush... just like the US senate didn't pull the world out of the Cuban Missile crisis... it was the President.

It would seem that the President is only the most powerful man in the world when it suits you... If you beleive Bush's proposed tax cuts for the richer demographics will actually increase tax revenue for the USA, then vote for him... just quit wasting your time patronising me. I hope I dont offend anyone here, but it would appear to me that the US senate are rather corrupt and only interested in looking after themselves, rather than the people of America...

This is the second time in as many weeks I have drawn this conclussion...

BAM!!!

Dave:

Sure for every dollar up to $311,101 you are taxed roughly 28%. Then, for every dollar thereafter you are taxed 35%... that is your private income. What you and others seem to be ignorant of, is that this money was taxed ALREADY when it was considered the income of your BUSINESS. If your business has previously re-invested its profits, those profits are taxed... and on, and on, and on...

• Your business makes a profit, and the government taxes it.
• Then, you take your cut and the government taxes it up to 35%, AGAIN, as your personal income.
• Then, whatever you invested that money into is subject to capital gains and dividend taxes.
• Then, your state steps in and starts the whole process over again, AT THE BUSINESS LEVEL
• If you have anything left for "luxury items", you pay a special tax on that as well.
• When the time comes to pay property tax on all that luxury, you are again taxed at a punitive rate.

This kind of taxation is egregious, and doesn't even take into consideration the host of other idiotic taxes our income goes to AFTER we have paid state and local taxes. Take a look at your phone/utility bill sometime. That is money going to taxes that has already been taxed at least two or three times.

Take Social Security, for instance. Your income is taxed before Social Security and other witholding. Then, when you take advantage of these benefits you paid in, it is taxable income...again. You have paid tax on your Social Security witholding twice. Then, when you spend it you'll pay whatever utility/sales/whatever taxes they can trump up to bite again.

People like Dave love to take a single step out of the tax system in the US and pretend that is that. If you want to pretend that the wealthy pay their 35% and are free from thereon, fine, but don't bludugeon me with your blindness and intolerably bad haiku. You can't dispute the fact that the "wealthy" in the US pay the lion's share of taxes, and you can only choose not to see that their tax burden is *vastly* greater than your grossly understated 27%, even if they take advantage of "loopholes".

but it would appear to me that the US senate are rather corrupt and only interested in looking after themselves, rather than the people of America...

You may be more right than wrong with that statement, Muggaz - all the more reason to be at least a tad concerned with what Kerry has been doing the past 19 years. I sure hope you don't give all your national politicians a free ride for everything but their actions as PM.

Cheers,
Daiwa