#25 by COL Gene Saturday, March 05, 2005

is not the 4% it is where are the trillions comming from to replace the 4%. Also if the market is down (like from 2000-2003) when you retire, the little guy can get killed. Also who pays to maintain tens of millions of those little account? Where does the money come from to pay the retirement benefits to those too old for the individual accounts. It would be nice to have answers to these questions from Professor Bush! When do we get the details? After we purchase the "used car"

How about we just use the same plan senators and congressmen use? it is already in place and seems to make these fat cats {both parties} richer!

Bush takes from the poor (and middle class) and gives to the rich.

Show where he has. Just one example. Try it. You cant.

I am now putting drguys words to me in action when recieving silly answeres.. laught first. hahahahahahah then ignore.

I am honored by your attribution!

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Monday, March 07, 2005I am now putting drguys words to me in action when recieving silly answeres.. laught first. hahahahahahah then ignore.I am honored by your attribution

you were the reason I delete my response to the ..... um person... thanx for keeping me and my temper in check doc, you are right it is beneath me to answere her.

Dr Guy

His tax cuts. The only group that has received a substantial amount are wealthy. Median tax cut $470. Cuts to people making 1 million and above average $113,000. Cuts to state and local tax bases has shifted $185 Billion during the past four years causing state and local tax increases and college increase tuition. 500,000 children have lost health care coverage since Bush took office. Source www.bushtax.com. add the higher interest we will be paying for decades on the increase in the National Debt- this is Bush and his policies.

His tax cuts

Once again, and for the last time. Tax cuts do not 'give' anything to anyone. It allows you to keep more of YOUR money. No money was TAKEN from any middle class or poor person for the tax cuts. Those who paid taxes, just paid less. Period.

You are wrong. Admit it.

Hmmm, I haven't paid taxes in years (at least not that I didn't get back the next april, and golly gee, I got a check. So which rich guys can say that they received more back than they actually paid??

From what I see, all they got to do was keep more of their own money, but I did even better than that, I had a net gain!!

So how did "the rich" come out of it better than me?

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Monday, March 07, 2005Dr GuyHis tax cuts. The only group that has received a substantial amount are wealthy. Median tax cut $470

to some people 470 dollors is alot of money... and once again to reiterate for the billionith time,, tax cuts do not take anything away from anyone.. you just get to keep more of the money be it 10000 a year or 10000000 a year ,you earned it. and shold be able to keep more of it.

Tax cuts that make it impossible to banance the budget take from everyone. Some time that debt will have to be repaid and until it is repaid, we will all pay the interest. Since 1980 the American Taxpayers have paid $6.5 Trillion in interest on the National Debt. That has taken from us ALL!!! If a person has expenses greater then their income, they do not go part time and make less. They get a better job or a second job to make ends meet. Tax cuts are like going part time when you could not pay your bills when you were working full time.

Dr Guy His tax cuts. The only group that has received a substantial amount are wealthy. Median tax cut $470. Cuts to people making 1 million and above average $113,000.

Come on COL your not ignorant. This only stands to reason. you pay more in taxes then your going to get more back in a tax cut. Simple math. Do I need to lay it out for you?I guess my wife and I fall above median. We got $600 back.

Tax cuts that make it impossible to banance the budget take from everyone.

But you haven't been arguing balancing the budget by taking from everyone, only those who make more than your arbitrary number. Well, I think that arbitrary number should be $60,000 or more. How is my number any less arbitrary than your $150,000?

If a person has expenses greater then their income, they do not go part time and make less. They get a better job or a second job to make ends meet. Tax cuts are like going part time when you could not pay your bills when you were working full time.

Now your trying to use microeconomic arguments for macroeconomic situations. Oops.

Parated2K

Tax cuts to the middle income is more effective to stimulate the economy because most of the tax cut is spent and stimulates demand. A much smaller part of tax cuts to the wealthy is spent and does not stimulate the economy to the same extent. Therefore, since we need the revenue to help balance the budget, it is better to tax the wealthy then the middle income worker. I am suggesting to return to the tax rates for the top 5% that were in effect prior to 2001. Those were the rates in effect when we had the boom of the 1990's. My agrument is not arbritrary but predicated on economics.

Tax cuts to the middle income is more effective to stimulate the economy because most of the tax cut is spent and stimulates demand. A much smaller part of tax cuts to the wealthy is spent and does not stimulate the economy to the same extent. Therefore, since we need the revenue to help balance the budget, it is better to tax the wealthy then the middle income worker. I am suggesting to return to the tax rates for the top 5% that were in effect prior to 2001. Those were the rates in effect when we had the boom of the 1990's. My agrument is not arbritrary but predicated on economics.

And does economics tell you what a stink that top 5% is going to raise when you only tax them and not the middle or lower classes? This is why your plan would fail.

drmiler

First, if the other 95% agree so what? Senond, given the gains the wealthy had in the 1990's with the tax rates at the higher levels, thay have nothing to complain about. It is the middle and low income families that get the crums and are hit with higher energy and health costs with little or no salary increase to offset the increases in essential goods and services they need to live.

Tax cuts to the middle income is more effective to stimulate the economy because most of the tax cut is spent and stimulates demand. A much smaller part of tax cuts to the wealthy is spent and does not stimulate the economy to the same extent.

Ok, so, for the sake of argument, we'll assume this is true. Since to me anyone who makes $60,000 a year are "rich" then how is that any different than your defining "rich" as a yearly income of $150,000?

As for the 5%, both of us are in the top 5% of the world's economy. So I guess both of us are "the rich".

ParaTed2K

We live in the US. I am suggesting the top two income tax brackets return to 39 and 36% and keep the Estate tax. The tax cuts that eliminate the marriage penality and the 10% bracket, the increased child exemption should be retained because they help the middle income workers. The added revenue from the top two brackets and Estate Tax (Impacts less then 1% of Americans) would provide hundreds of billions each year to help balance the budget.

Col Gene, I know what your point is, but all it says is that you are quite willing to see other people pay more, if it means you don't have to.

If you ask me, a flat tax for everything after a given income level (based on median income and indexed for local cost of living) would be better. It would ask the same percentage from everyone, while at the same time allow everyone the same untaxed amount.

But that's just me.

Most people in the top 5% are business owners. You raise their taxes, they're going to pass it down.  The first thing that would happen here is that JU would cease being a free site.

I find it rather annoying that some guy who probably pays next to nothing in taxes is suggesting that I, who pay 6 figures in taxes already, should pay more.  The tax system we already have is ridiculously unfair.  Half the population essentially pays no federal income taxes.

Col Gene makes a good Democrat though - Democracy only works until 51% of the people realize that they can vote themselves in gifts and treasures that are confiscated from the other 49%.

for crying out loud how many times do I have to site this simple fact....

MY wife's firm got a tax break.. she HIRED another producer. the production went up, she HIRED another producer.. the production went up.... all and all MORE taxes were paid at the lower tax level, than at the higher, due to new workers and more production.

NOw tax her at a higher rate.. she fires one worker to make budget... increase again.. she fires again.. lowering production, less taxes in actual monies paid to gov.

GET IT YET COLGENE??

or must i resort to kindergarten math?

GET THIS

WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO SPEND MORE THEN WE TAX. WE MUST EITHER CUT EXPENSES OR INCREASE TAXES. I AM IN SIX FIGUARS TOO AND RAN SEVERAL LARGE BUSINESSES. YOU CAN NOT ACT LIKE BUSH AND KEEP INCREASING THE DEBT AND THE INTEREST THAT REQUIRES. THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT BY SPENDING CUTS ONLY. THUS, AT SOME TIME THE WEALTHY WILL SEE A BIG TAX INCREASE. YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005GET THISWE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO SPEND MORE THEN WE TAX. WE MUST EITHER CUT EXPENSES OR INCREASE TAXES. I AM IN SIX FIGUARS TOO AND RAN SEVERAL LARGE BUSINESSES. YOU CAN NOT ACT LIKE BUSH AND KEEP INCREASING THE DEBT AND THE INTEREST THAT REQUIRES. THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT BY SPENDING CUTS ONLY. THUS, AT SOME TIME THE WEALTHY WILL SEE A BIG TAX INCREASE. YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!

you hurt my feelings yelling at me. bad man bad man.. read my new post about tax breaks and incentives gene, you are a smart man being obtuse for knee jerk reasons.

iler First, if the other 95% agree so what? Senond, given the gains the wealthy had in the 1990's with the tax rates at the higher levels, thay have nothing to complain about. It is the middle and low income families that get the crums and are hit with higher energy and health costs with little or no salary increase to offset the increases in essential goods and services they need to live

This is all well and good. But since you won't be on the recieving end of the proposed tax kind of makes your opinion invalid.

A ten trillion dollar national debt by 2008 and a $500 billion interest payment on that debt is not what I call "Knee jerk reasons" Neither is the $6.5 Trillion we have paid in interest since 1980.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005A ten trillion dollar national debt by 2008 and a $500 billion interest payment on that debt is not what I call "Knee jerk reasons" Neither is the $6.5 Trillion we have paid in interest since 1

gene gene gene.... be reasonable... we had a recession forming BEFORE my guy bill left office, the the 9-11 attack.. something needed to be done to kick start the econemy, bush did it and it worked. why cannot you just say one good thing about bush. why?

We have not had a recession for about two years and are running a deficit of about $675 Billion. It is long past time that the budget should be balanced. Another issue is the War. In the past, we have paid for the added cost of war with tax increases. Bush has put it on the tab.