Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

yeah, the only people who are overtaxed are the ones in YOUR tax-bracket, right? Anyone who makes less than $150,000 is respectable, anyone who makes more is "The Rich".. right?

ParaDuckTruth, how dare you insult Col. Gene, a fellow vet, and JoeUser's SRO!

Besides which, do you deny that the rich get richer? the poor get pissed on? Don’t be a lackey! Don’t lick Donald Trump’s heel!

The war of the poor against the rich will be the most bloodthirsty. Which side will you be on, ParaDuckTruth ?

I will give Bush credit for two things.. First, he released all of his tax return. Cheney only released the 1040 and hid the details of his over $400,000 itimized deductions. Bush also gave 10% of his income to charity - congratulations George W. Bush.

I looked at the details of the Bush return with the following:

Bush paid these taxes in 2004:

Federal Income $207,290
Property Texas 22,158
Sales Tax 2,186
Soc Sec 5,700 on fisrt $87,700 salary
Medicate 8,800 on $400,000 salary

Total taxes $243, 179


Bush is paying 31.8% of his income to ALL forms of taxes ( Federal, State and local). Cheney is in the range of 25% of all his income to taxes. Where is this opressive tax burden on the wealthy? I have read claims it is much is 50 to 55 % of the income for wealthy Americans goes to some form of tax. This is certainly not the case with our vice president who has a $1.7 million income and are president whose income is about three quarters of a million. Given the fact we are borrowing ONE in every FOUR dollars that the United States is currently spending, to be taxing the wealthy at these low levels is irresponsible fiscal policy!

ParaTed2K

I never said I was over taxed. I have documented the wealthy are undertaxed. This entire argument put forth by the conservative Republican agenda that the wealthy are being put upon by a huge tax burden in this country is simply NOT true! No one that is paying in the 25-30% of their total income in taxes including federal ,state, local, Social Security and Medicare could claim that they are overtaxed. It silmply is NOT TRUE!

The war of the poor against the rich will be the most bloodthirsty. Which side will you be on, ParaDuckTruth ?

I pay NO attention to mindless "class warfare" stupidity. Yes, there are unscrupulous "rich" people, but then again, the same can be said for a lot of "poor" and "middle class" people too.


A business owner who shorts an employee's paycheck, is a thief, an employee who steals company supplies, plays online games or blogs while "on the clock" is also a thief.

Col. Gene is a fellow vet, and I do thank him for his service. However, he is also in such a venomous hatred for Prs. Bush that nothing he says actually means anything anymore. He has as much credibility in things political as a KKK member has in discussions on race.

Hate is Hate, I don't care how you package it.

btw, my congratulations of your original parody 0f my name, nice work!

I never said I was over taxed. I have documented the wealthy are undertaxed. This entire argument put forth by the conservative Republican agenda that the wealthy are being put upon by a huge tax burden in this country is simply NOT true! No one that is paying in the 25-30% of their total income in taxes including federal ,state, local, Social Security and Medicare could claim that they are overtaxed. It silmply is NOT TRUE!

ColGene, you have stated in other articles and replies that since you don't make over $150,000, you aren't "rich", so don't play dumb with me. You do make more than most Americans, so, in a very relative sense, you ARE among the "rich".

What is your real beef here, that some people pay less than others? The whole graduated tax system is pure and simple bigotry and mindless class warfare stupidity. No one should be paying 23-30% of their income to the government. Not even YOU!

ParaTed2K

To pay for the services that enable society to prosper takes a lot of things- Military, law emnforcement, commerce, education, etc. The cost of those services MUST be paid. We are only paying for 3 out of every 4 dollars these service cost. My point is that the claim the wealthy are paying more then half their income in taxes is pure BS! Your contention that no one should pay 25-30 % is not correct or we would not have a deficit. We would be able to pay 100% of the cost of our society! Given the fact we are borrowing 25% of what we are spending, taxes rates are too low and the wealthy are the group that can afford to balance the budget! Yes we should first see what can be cut (Pork) and make sure we are enforcing the tax collections. However, that alone will not balance the budget!

Col Gene, you're an idiot.

Do you know why? Because you have no idea how the tax system really works. You're just a pathetic blow hard.

Why don't you take a look at John Edwards Tax Returns to see how "the rich" really get around things.  Tell you what, "Colonel", let's raise taxes and I'll demonstrate personally how the rich liberals like John Edwards and John Kerry and their hollywood friends get out of paying.

I'll even spell it out for you -- this is how John Edwards does it btw:

You create an LLC such as say Edward Consulting LLC.

Instead of taking money as a paycheck that is taxed, you have it paid to your LLC company.  Then, at the end of the year, rather than paying yourslefl a pay-check, you pay yourself a dividend.  Guess what? Dividends are taxed at only 15% of their NET. And you don't have to contribute to medicare, medicaid or social security. It's basically the same as making a profit at selling stock except it is your own stock.

My tax returns were sent in a couple week sago.  I was taxed at 33% (plus 6% Michigan). My taxes exceeded $100k.  How much did you pay in, Colonel?  Did I get some special, magical federal services in exchange?  Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids go to special schools? In fact, is there any tangible difference in the way the government treats me than it does you?  No.

But the accountants say I should do what John Edwards does.  Create an LLC and be paid through that as a consultant.  Then have the LLC pay me as a dividend.  My taxes would be cut more than in half.  After all, that's what Democrats like Edwards and Kerry do.  You raise the taxes on the wealthy and we'll find alternative means to lower them.

"But the accountants say I should do what John Edwards does. Create an LLC and be paid through that as a consultant. Then have the LLC pay me as a dividend. My taxes would be cut more than in half. After all, that's what Democrats like Edwards and Kerry do. You raise the taxes on the wealthy and we'll find alternative means to lower them."

Just talk a good game and take the money and run!

YOu pathetic attempt to demonstrated a point did quite the opposite.  Youfailed to include the 100s of other taxes they paid, and you failed to show HOW MUCH tax they paid.  You quote percentages that look low, but when you do the math, you realize they paid through the teeth!

Simple fact:  See if you can follow this:

A tax cut cuts TAXES.  It does not redistribute wealth.  The more you pay in taxes, the bigger the cut.

How much did Cheney or Bush get back from the marriage penalty or the child credit? 0

But it sure helped me so that my tax bill came out to be about 12% federal, 6% state, 15% FICA, and 20% for the rest of them.  Add that up.  That is over 50%, and you would deny me the fact that my 12% federal got cut from (2001 levels) 16%?

Brad hit you on the nose with his assessment.

Dr Guy

You fill of BS. The taxes I included from the Bush tax retutrn are the vast majority of the the taxes he paid. Bottom line, the rich are not over taxed and the tax returns or Bush and Cheney show that. If our tax laws allow some to pay even less tax then we need to change the laws. The issue is that the tax burden on the wealthy is too great is so much BS! Bush after tax has $1,425 per day to live on and Cheney about $3,600 per day. Those poor boys!

You fill of BS. The taxes I included from the Bush tax retutrn are the vast majority of the the taxes he paid. Bottom line, the rich are not over taxed and the tax returns or Bush and Cheney show that. If our tax laws allow some to pay even less tax then we need to change the laws. The issue is that the tax burden on the wealthy is too great is so much BS! Bush after tax has $1,425 per day to live on and Cheney about $3,600 per day. Those poor boys!

That is fine by me! They earned it as did most of the other rich people (Kerry and Edwards excepted as one married it and the other cheated for it).  Your statement above says it all.  You really are not a political creature, you are a jealous one.  Jealous of what others have and you do not.  And it galls you!  It eats at you and gnaws at you to the point that it possesses you.

You are a sad little man that only has hate and envy left.

To pay for the services that enable society to prosper takes a lot of things- Military, law emnforcement, commerce, education, etc. The cost of those services MUST be paid. We are only paying for 3 out of every 4 dollars these service cost. My point is that the claim the wealthy are paying more then half their income in taxes is pure BS! Your contention that no one should pay 25-30 % is not correct or we would not have a deficit.

I doubt the "rich" pay more than 50% of their income to the federal government, in fact I know they don't because there aren't any tax brackets that high anymore. However, no one should have to pay even 25% of their income to the government. If we went to a flat tax type of system then we would cut out all the money (both private and federal) that is wasted on tax collecting.

We also need to cut out ALL expenditures that have no Constitutional basis. Knee-jerk class warfare arguments about who should and shouldn't be taxed more than everyone else are nothing more than bigotry against whatever class the arguer thinks "isn't doing their fair share".

The whole graduated tax system is unconstitutional and based on class hatred. There is NO excuse for it!!

Dr. Guy

No true. I want this country to stop passing the cost of today to the next generation. We must be willing to pay 100% of what we are spending. That is not what the current policy is doing. To pay the cost of our society means those that can affort to must pay a little more. We did not have to face trillions of debt from our parents and we should not pass that debt to our children! That has nothing to do with being jealous. It has to do with what is best for the future of this country!

No true. I want this country to stop passing the cost of today to the next generation. We must be willing to pay 100% of what we are spending. That is not what the current policy is doing.

In that we will agree. But the answer is not to tax more, but spend less. There is no limit on spending, there is only a limit on income. And if you want to bash Bush for spending too much, then you can count me in on that.

But not for taxing too much.

Dr Guy

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts. Not Possible or even close. that is why we must repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy, look for some cuts such as the pork and follow a more aggressive collection policy. But to say were going to balance our budget with spending cuts is totally unrealistic.

We are spending about 500 billion on defense and 487 billion on all other non-DoD discretionary(most of the so called Discretionary pays for the operation of the government). Medicaid is about 194 billion and other manditory spending is 337 Billion . Social Security is about 515 billion and Medicare another 290 billion. There simply is no way to cut anything approaching $675 billion in federal expenditures. We are like a family that is spending 25% more than their income. The answer is a part-time job which in the terms of our government is additional tax revenue. If you get the added revenue from the middle and low income workers you adversly impact spending and the GDP growth. That is why the only place to get the added tax revenue is from the wealthy. They can afford it and it will have far less impact on spending and GDP .

Dr Guy

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts. Not Possible or even close. that is why we must repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy, look for some cuts such as the pork and follow a more aggressive collection policy. But to say were going to balance our budget with spending cuts is totally unrealistic.

We are spending about 500 billion on defense and 487 billion on all other non-DoD discretionary(most of the so called Discretionary pays for the operation of the government). Medicaid is about 194 billion and other manditory spending is 337 Billion . Social Security is about 515 billion and Medicare another 290 billion. There simply is no way to cut anything approaching $675 billion in federal expenditures. We are like a family that is spending 25% more than their income. The answer is a part-time job which in the terms of our government is additional tax revenue. If you get the added revenue from the middle and low income workers you adversly impact spending and the GDP growth. That is why the only place to get the added tax revenue is from the wealthy. They can afford it and it will have far less impact on spending and GDP .

There's no set of tax increases that will balance the budget.   Get rid of Medicaid entirely and you're down (using your figures) $194 billion rigth there. Cut down Medicare drastically and you can sqeeze out quite a bit mroe too.

There's plenty of discretionary programs that could be cut as well. Don't say you can't cut the budget to balance it. I've written many times, quite specifically what would need to be cut and by how much.

I have also provided you with charts from the CBO that demonstrate that tax cuts didn't cause the deficits.  You never address these things. You jus tdeny and move on.

Yes, paying 1/5th of your income IS too much for anyone to pay, and I haven't lost my mind. It just goes to show how brainwashed people are to think that the wealthy should be punished for their wealth.

Draginol

come to reality. You're not going to cut Medicaid or Medicare or anything like that to balance the budget. The vast majority of Americans would not stand for cuts like that. It is not a matter of punishing people it a matter of doing what needs to be done to pay for our society. We could cut 100 billion if we get out of Iraq. We could probably cut another 50 billion by eliminating foreign aid and the pork that is at an all-time high. We might even be able to get another hundred billion with more aggressive tax collection. That still leaves us about hundred billion dollars out of balance. The tax cuts have added to the deficit. All you have to do is repeal the tax cuts on the top two income tax brackets and the reduction in dividend and capital gains rates and several billions of dollars every year will flow in to the treasury which will reduce the deficit. That's where that $270 billion comes from. Bottom line you are not going to balance the budget with cuts and we need increased tax revenues to avoid financial disaster.

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts.

I suggested in a previous blog SEVERAL federal agencies that could be downsized or eliminated entirely to bring us closer in line. I also propose cutting the staff of congressmen (currently averaging 150 members per House and Senate member). While I realize they must maintain two offices (one in DC, one in their home district), I feel that by "sharing" certain staff, they could reduce their staff to about 50. That's a 2/3 reduction in that area. Assuming each staff member makes $50,000 /year (many likely make more), that's a half a billion bucks right there. It still leaves us a long way from even, but it's a good start.

I still don't see how you figure surrendering 1/3 of one's income to be UNDERTAXED! High taxation is a disincentive to achievement.

My tax returns were sent in a couple week sago. I was taxed at 33% (plus 6% Michigan). My taxes exceeded $100k. How much did you pay in, Colonel? Did I get some special, magical federal services in exchange? Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids go to special schools? In fact, is there any tangible difference in the way the government treats me than it does you? No.

Bloody hell, I would gladly walk a mile in your shoes.
I'm in the second teir and closely follow Draggie's percentages but I don't make anywhere near what he makes. Now your Michigan tax is replaced with a pst of 7% and a gst or fed tax of 7%. You fill your car up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.40ish a gallon. Well at .945 a litre that that works out in excess of 3.50 a gallon. Please explain.
Link

If the tax rates were so bad prior to 2000, explain the 1990's and the fact the wealthy did better during that period then EVER before? They did better AFTER paying the highte tax rates. It is just greed on the part of those who have everything they could possibly want or need to want the lower tax rates in effect today. In addition, all the cuts have not taken place yet and when they do, the revenue reduction will be even greater making the problem of balancing the budget worse! The end to the Estate Tax will cut $30-40 Billion EVERY year from the federal revenue! If we had a balenced budget with the tax cuts to the wealthy it would be fine. That is just not the case!

Enough with the estate tax. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED; it should be allowed to pass on to the next generation.

Tax increases on the wealthy trickle down to the poor in the form of higher costs of services, prices, etc, and lower employment due to the employer having less net income to allocate to employees. In the end, it hurts ALL of us. This is why reform MUST center on lowering expenditures and taxes rather than on increasing taxes. Every system of taxation ever administered has fallen disproportionately on the poor; there are reasons for that that cannot be overcome without surrendering individual liberties. I don't agree with it, but I think it beats the hell out of the alternative!

Col Gene - the boom of the 90s was largely because of the lingering effects of the 80s tax-cuts along with vast productivity gains in the 90s thanks to the rise of computer technology. 

You could balance the budget if we just froze spending for a year. Wouldn't even have to make cuts.

If you're so worried about the deficit, Col Gene, put your money where your mouth is and start working more hours and sending the proceeds to Washington.