COL Gene

Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

▼

Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

The boys did good for themselves with the tax cuts

from JoeUser Forums
The 1040's for Bush and Cheney are on the web. Here are the results from their tax returns:

In 2004 Bush had taxable income Line 35 of $784, 219 and paid 26.4% in Federal Income tax. In 2001 Bush before his tax cuts he had taxable income of $811,100 and paid 30.8 % in Federal Income taxes.

The Big winner is Cheney. In 2004, he had taxable income of $1,734,373 and paid 21.3% in Federal Income taxes. In 2001 Cheney had taxable income of $4,356,635 and paid 38% in Federal Income Taxes.

The more you make the less you pay after the Bush tax cuts. The President is in the top 3% and Cheney the top 1% of wage earners . ANYONE THAT BELIEVES THAT PAYING 21% OR 26 % IS TOO HIGH FOR PEOPLE MAKING THIS AMOUNT OF INCOME, HAS LOST THEIR MIND! SO MUCH FOR THE CLAIM THE RICH ARE OVERTXED!
politics
46,391 views 136 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the federal estate tax does NOT just effect the "super rich" as you well know. Just because a business or property is worth $3 million doesn't mean the people who own/inherit it have $1.5 million in cash to pay the taxes.


ColGene, I guess to you all those farmers who have millions in assets (mostly in land), but make less than you do are now "super rich" in your eyes. When they have to sell the farm to cover your precious "estate taxes", just because they're parents died and so thoughtlessly passed the farm on to the kids, I'm sure they are really feeling the love.

Just another example of your own ignorance.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is not class warfare. We as a country are paying for only 3/4 of what we are spending to maintain our society. It is like a family that spends $2,400 per month to live with income of $1,800. They charge $600 per month on their credit card and soon they can not pay the minimum on the card. The cumulative balance on the card becomes unmanageable as does the interest due on that balance. If the family can cut lets say $100 per month they must get a part time job to make the other $500. That is where we are. After we cut what we can, the balance MUST come from more income which for the Government is taxes. If the added taxes come from the low and middle income workers, the spending will decline and that will lower GDP. If the added income comes from the wealthy, there is a lower impact on spending (demand). In addition, the ability of the low and middle income to pay higher taxes and live is very different from the upper income workers who can pay the higher taxes without impactuing their ability to meet their bills. That is the truth and until we act in a responsible way and pay for 100% of our needs from current tax revenue, we are moving this country into a future disaster! After we have balanced the budget we must then begin repaying the trillions of debt on the books!
Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

What is this "we" business Col Gene?  The reality is that the top 5% are paying for over half the taxes already while roughly 40% of the adult population gets by without contributing anything while consuming more than their fair share.

And your answer to this? Make the top 5% pay even more.

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
The budget is not balanced. Cuts alone will not produce a savings of $675 billion. Therefore tax revenue MUST make up the difference. It does not matter if the top 5% are paying half. That does not balance the budget. I have explained why it is better for the economy to restore the tax rates to pre 2000 levels on the top 5% rather on the middle class or the poor. Just like what the Sec of the Treas and Fed Chairman told Bush- make the tax cuts dependent on available surplus and since we have no surplus we must rescind the tax cuts. the entire argument used by Bush in 2000 and 2001 was that we had overtax the American people and that we had a return is huge $5.7 trillion projected surplus. Since there was no surplus, except in Bush's mind, there should be no tax cuts.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

You saying over and over that cuts alone won't produce the savings needed doesn't make it so.

No one is going to agree to trying to balance the budget in a single year.  You simply reduce the rate of increase in spending for a few years and voila.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col Gene must think that the lowest income people will rise up and invest their widow's mite when the wealthy shove their money away from Lib's grubby little fingers.

That's the way to spur an economy, punish the people whose money keep it floating.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe: As has been shown elsewhere, the deficits we currently have are not because of the tax cuts.


Oh, then I guess it's because of the war? Hmmmmmmmm......... distinction without a difference.

Besides, it doesn't really matter. We're running up the deficit, and that's the bottom line. The tax cuts, which were supposedly to stimulate the economy, clearly isn't working. Gee, no surprise there. But, given that we are running up the deficits, seems to me that it makes no freakin sense to keep cutting taxes. What a model our government portrays for fiscal irresponsibility....... as our bills get bigger and bigger, gee, let's just lower our income. Now, that makes a ton of sense. NOT
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe, come on. If this situation were completely reversed and the Dems were screaming for tax cuts, you'd be right here echoing them. Don't pretend that you have the least bit of interest in the economy, it's demeaning to you.

Just say "Bush is an asshole" or something, like usual. Pretending you're more than you are just highlights the facade...
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet, you are so wrong. For one thing, the dems would be far less likely to be screaming for tax cuts during a war and/or mounting deficits. And, other dems would keep them in check. It's a philosophical thing. But, with this one party system of gimmee repulsicans, it's just the most self-serving, selfish administation in our lifetimes, supported by the gimmee-est bunch of jingos I've ever seen in one "place".

And, just to make you happy...............

Bush is a f*kking asshole
Reply #60 from PolMach Forums Top
And, other dems would keep them in check. It's a philosophical thing.


Ahhhh, ahhhh, ahhhh, ahhh :D harrr, harrr, harrr :D:D

Ohh, now that was a good laugh. Good one there dabe.

Ohhh, your serious?

The only chance we have of having a balenced budget is for the margins between the two parties to be close in Congress. Then the party not in power and moderates, will badger the ruling party to death about it. It don't matter which party has complete control, they will spend on their pork, and the other side will scream balenced budget until they are in power (then spend on their pork).
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like to have someone explain how we can be running a 675 billion-dollar deficit at a time when the economy is supposedly in recovery and believe that a healthy economic reality for this country. If the tax cuts work to work while I with a recovering economy are rerunning is huge deficit? The answer is supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate the economy sufficiently to restore the lost revenue from the tax cut and produce the additional revenue to fund the increased spending. It is exactly what happened in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. The only difference is a we have now raised the debt to almost $8 trillion heading toward 10 with no end in sight. When we finally choose to fix this problem it is going to require huge increases in taxes for both the wealthy and the not so wealthy. All of this will be put at the doorsteps of the conservative Republican party and George W. (Voodo economics) Bush.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you feed the Great Pig a little more, it is sure to get more thin and healthy.

NOT. Put the pig on a diet. If your kid blows his week's allowance the first day, you don't make him more fiscally responsibe by doubling his allowance the next week.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet

Put up or shut up? Show how you would lower federal spending by $ 675 Billion that would be acceptable to the majority of Americans. Not what the so called, "Christian conservatives" like Bush would cut but the cuts most MOST Americans (remenber democracy) would support!
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, it isn't going to be 675 Billion when your changes get made, and you know it. That's what so digusting about your arguments sometimes. You KNOW that we that the cost of the war in Iraq isn't permanent. You KNOW that the loss of revenues caused by a flagging economy isn't permanent... UNLESS you strangle the economy by punishing those who invest in it, and who should be rewarded for not shoving it in a less useful tax shelter.

That is what you keep overlooking. What you propose harms the economy, robbing it of capital, punishing people for investment. Then, your harmed economy generates LESS revenue for the government. Worse, it harms the economy two years down the road, since you aren't possibly going to get these changes made until the 2007 budget.

So, you want to address 2005's problems in 2007, when this economy could need even MORE fuel. If we followed your lead, we might see an even weaker economy in 2007, and then strip it of even MORE capital.

You are the last person to start reminding people about Democracy. You economic ideals are far, far more of an imposition on the general will, and seek political change through scare tactics and panic mongering.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have tried to explain this to Col Gene repeatedly but he seems to simply ignore it.

If you slow the rate of spending increases each year so that it's less than the increase we receive from natural growth in tax receipts due to a growing economy, we will have a balanced budget at some point.

That is how we got a balanced budget in the 90s incidentally. It wasn't from tax increases (including the 1991 one that doomed Bush Sr.).  It was that tax receipts increased faster than spending. The tech bubble produced immense tax income through capital gains (in fact, yout ake out the capital gains tax income and we didn't really have much, if any, of a surplus).

Most Americans would support this.  Most Americans do NOT support increasing taxes. That issue was settled this past November.

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, it has been over 3 years and the economy has not produced the added revenue even though we have some of the largest tax cuts and deficits in our history. The administration keeps telling us how the economy has recovered. Then why is the deficit growing?

Look at the increase in interest rates and energy prices. look at the stock market. It appears as if what recovery has taken place may be disappearing which will produce an even greater gap between revenue and expenses. Your correct the war cost will not last forever but even without the hundred billion or so we are spending in Iraq, we have a substantial imbalance between ongoing revenue and ongoing expenses. In addition, you fail to recognize the huge impact almost $8 Trillion debt, which is heading toward $10 Trillion. Every year we will pay more interest on that huge increase in the debt which will make it more difficult to balance the budget. Since 1980, the American taxpayers have paid over $6.5 Trillion dollars in interest on the national Debt. We could see annual interest payments of $500 Billion EVERY YEAR on the $10 Trillion debt until we REPAY that debt. We have created structural deficit where the ongoing revenue, at the current rate of taxation, is simply not equal to the ongoing expense. I have balanced many large budgets in my career and I can tell you that way we are going about the financial management of this country would bankrupt any company I worked for.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look at the increase in interest rates and energy prices. look at the stock market


Yeah! Lets look at the stock market! The market has gone UP on both sides of the fence. So how is this a bad thing?
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's kind of self defeating to pretend you give a damn about the stock market and then scream the benefits of dividend taxes.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col Gene, it is class warfare because your whole solution says that while you should be able to use deductions and loopholes, those who make more than you shouldn't.

If you think it is tax breaks that are causing the deficit, put your money where your rhetoric is! There is no law requiring you to use any deduction or tax credit. Return your pension, as it adds to the deficit! Encourage everyone to do the same!!!

If all you are doing is pointing out why other people shouldn't be getting the same tax breaks you are using, just because they make more.... That is Class Warfare!!!
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet

Not So. That is where part of my retirement savings are invested. It has dropped to the lowest levels this year (about 700 points).

Parated2K

It has nothing to do with deductions etc. It is the rates on the top two income brachets, rates on dividends and capital gains and the federal Estate Tax. they need to return to the same levels that were in effect prior to 2001. That had the deductions etc in the 1990's - the rates were higher which produced more revenue.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

I looked at the Federal revenue from OMB . You will see, federal revenue has dropped even after growth in GDP since 2000. This is the result of the TAX CUTS:

1998 1.722 Trillion
1999 1.828
2000 2.025
2001 1.991
2002 1.853
2003 1.922

After three year of GDP increases and three years of the tax cuts we are collecting LESS federal taxes then in 2000! At the same time federal spending has increases EVERY YEAR. That is why we have added 2.3 Trillion in Debt since Bush took office!
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Not So. That is where part of my retirement savings are invested. It has dropped to the lowest levels this year (about 700 points)."


I wonder if you would be so hot for dividend taxes if your fund was doing better?
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has nothing to do with MY Fund. It has to do with not taking this country into a level of debt that will harm the future for my children and grandchildren. I have pensions and resources that will take care of me and my wife. I want this country to be strong for my children and grandchildren. Bush is taking us off a clif so his ultra wealthy supporters can add some more zero's to their wealth as we go into debt as a nation. We ignore the consequences of Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the trade deficit, the federal deficit, loss of jobs and industries so the wealthy and big corporations can add to their net worth at the expense of the average American. I object to that I hope Americans form the majority of this country rise and remove the conservative Republican from power before it is too late.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col., you'd just have to be on my end of this, and hear you talk about the evils of debt and suggesting to solve it by punishing the people who fuel our economy.

It's beyond transparent how partisan it is.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
I object to that I hope Americans form the majority of this country rise and remove the conservative Republican from power before it is too late.



Americans had their chance and they chose Bush. Americans do not want liberals who will raise taxes, don't you get that?