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 #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm going to be paying over $1M in taxes this year between my personal taxes and my company's taxes.  Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids get to go to a special school? Do I get a single extra service from the government that you're not getting? No. 

Col Gene never really makes a sound argument as to WHY, on what ethical basis that "the rich" should pay massively more in taxes other than "they can afford it".

The government is supposed to provide us services.  If I'm paying 100X as much in taxes as say Col Gene, what am I getting in return?

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

First We MUST PAY for what the Government Spends. I have no problem cutting Federal Spending IF that is what the majority want. However just cutting what the conservatives believe is unneeded is not acceptable. Cuts MUST be what are acceptable to the majority of Americans. The reality is that since the GOP took over Pork and spending has moved to an ALL TIME HIGH.

Second, when we have settled on the level of spending the Tax revenue MUST equal the Spending. To have tax cuts when we are SHORT $600 Billion per year does not work.


Today there is NO COMBINATION of spending CUTS that will balance the budget. Thus, we will need three things:

Spending Cuts – starting with about $30 Billion in Pork.
Increased enforcement of existing taxes (Tax simplification would help)
Increased tax rate to finish the job of making Spending = Tax Revenue.

When we look at the increased tax revenue we can have an overall tax increase to generate the added revenue or it can be skewed to one economic group. It we were to increase taxes OVERALL WE WOULD TAKE MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE INCOME WORKING FMILIES which would negatively impact their spending and our economic growth. If we obtain the added tax revenue more from the wealthy, there is far less impact on demand and our economic growth. That Draginol is the ECONOMIC REASON for higher taxes on the wealthy.

The other reason is that higher taxes on the wealthy will NOT impact their life style and put them in a position of not being able to afford what is NEEDED for their families. The added tax will come from their SURPLUS. That is the Social reality Draginol.

As to your taxes, I bet most of that $1 million is Not Personal federal Income taxes. If you have company profits that require you to be paying anything close to a million dollars, you must not be in financial trouble. The issue is not how much more YOU get out of the higher taxes you pay. It is that collectively we MUST balance the Budget and having the wealthy pay more has both an ECONOMIC and SOCIAL benefits as I have explained above. The reality is that during the BOOM of the 1990's the economic group that did by far the best were the wealthy. Please answer me how did the wealthy do so well if the tax rates before 2000 were so oppressive?

To say people like Bush and Cheney are over taxed is absurd. Bush made $ ¾ of million dollars and paid about 25% in taxes. Cheney adjusting for his transfers made almost $2 million and paid 27%. Make the tax cuts for the middle income tax payers permanent. However to borrow money so we can continue tax cuts to people that DO NOT NEED THE MONEY is harmful to this country. The interest on the debt will be moving toward $ ½ a Trillion dollars EVERY year because of the fiscal policy we are following. The interest when Bush took over was % 1/4 of a Trillion dollars.

Draginol- Could your company prosper if you were spending 20% more every year then you took in and were putting that 20% on your credit card and NEVER paid down the Balance?

Draginol - It is your turn to address the points I have made. In my last job I was responsible for a $120 Million dollar per year operation and had to BALANCE the Budget EVERY YEAR. That is what I want Bush to do. Not cut the deficit in half!
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

First We MUST PAY for what the Government Spends. I have no problem cutting Federal Spending IF that is what the majority want. However just cutting what the conservatives believe is unneeded is not acceptable. Cuts MUST be what are acceptable to the majority of Americans. The reality is that since the GOP took over Pork and spending has moved to an ALL TIME HIGH.

You make a couple of assumptions that we've discussed before:

1) You assume that everyone considers any deficit spendings to be unacceptable.

2) You believe that the majority are okay with raising taxes on "some people" to pay for said pork.

There's far too much waste to justify raising taxes.  We could eliminate the deficit any time we wanted if we simply curbed spending INCREASES. We don't even have to make cuts, just quit increasing spending each year.

I'm paying enough in taxes.  You raise taxes any higher and people like myself will find legal ways to avoid paying those taxes by off-shoring it.   People like you argue about increasing taxes and then decry when companies outsource or take jobs out of the coountry.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anything over 20% (of actual income) is too much.
Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa
Just how did you come up with that one? Until we have balanced the Budget we must have a combination of spending cuts and added revenue to bring our SPENDING equal to the TAX REVENUE!
Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is it just me, or does Col sound like he wants to solve the deficit problem in one year? If so, what will happen with the rest of the money made after we fix the deficit problem? Or does he also believe that once the deficit is gone that we can lower the taxes again?

I can't believe this article has gotten so many replies when the point was made clear by half the people posting here. This is like trying to get my 3 year old to understand something and even though you repeat yourself to him hundreds of times he doesn't get it.

It is not logical, moral or even ethical to make those who earn more pay more. It's even worsew when those who pay more already are not elligable for Gov't assistance like those who pay little or no taxes.

This is not a concert where if you can afford better seats you pay for them, the Gov't should see everyone the same, no one should pay more simply because they earn more.

This is stupid and so is the writter when he can't even admit defeat and just ignore what everyone else says.

BTW, my favorite reply was when Col said the Lee's link was just one opinion yet that all he ever does but according to him they are not just one opinion.

One last thing, can someone tell me who made Col Gene the voice of " The Vast Majority of the People" in the US? Since when does he speak for everyone?
Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top
CharlesC

Please read #127

The issue is very basic The United States Government is spending more then it takes in Taxes. We must END that since we are creating an amount of debt that will require ever increasing interest payments. That interest will take the money we need to pay for things like defense, health, homeland security etc. No company, person or nation can spend more then they have in revenue. We are borrowing money, paying interest on that borrowed money so we can give tax cuts to the wealthy that DO NOT NEED MORE MONEY. If we were running a surplus in tax revenue over expenses a tax cut would be justified. That is NOT the case. I do not think we can balance the budget in one year. My proposal is to have the budget balanced by the end of 2008 and then begin generating a surplus of $200 billion EVERY year thereafter to be used to pay down the debt. It would take 30 years at $200 billion per year to repay the debt that will be on the books when King George retires to Texas!
Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes Gene, it's very basic.  The government spends more than it takes in.

You want to cure this by having us give the government a raise.

In the "real world" people cut their spending to make ends meet.  The government should look to do the same.

Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone sing along, now...

"Workin' for the ma-an,
Workin' for the ma-an..."

A year-old thread, no less.
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

In the real world you BOTH cut your expenses AND increase REVENUE. Today we have allowed the problem to become so great that NO CUTS ALONE will solve the problem. WE are $600 Billion out of balance and ONLY both cutting expenses and increasing revenue can solve the problem!
Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top

In the real world you BOTH cut your expenses AND increase REVENUE. Today we have allowed the problem to become so great that NO CUTS ALONE will solve the problem. WE are $600 Billion out of balance and ONLY both cutting expenses and increasing revenue can solve the problem!

What planet are you living on?

If Joe schmoe can't make ends meet, how exactly does he increase revenue? Steal? The government should live within its means.

Getting out of the welfare business would be a good start.  I take care of my own family, it's not the federal government's job to take care of the food, clothing and shelter of its citizens. That's the job of charities.

As I've pointed out to you in the past, even if we eliminated the tax cuts, we would still have a deficit. And in all likelyhood, it would depress the economy.

You tax people like me and we'll make sure the money goes away where it won't get taxed. It's just a matter of what that threshold of pain is. I'm already there. I pay 41% of my income to the state and federal government as-is.  I also have to pay into medicare money that I'll never get back (2.9%). For a total of about 44% of my income being taken away right away. 

And you want me to pay more? Why is it my responsibility to pay more? Because I can afford it? That's specious reasoning. Punishing success is not the solution.

I don't work for the government. The government is supposed to by the people, for the people. Read the federalist papers sometimes. The federal government was supposed to be a super-neighborhood association.  The founding fathers would be sickened at the state we're in today.  And they would definitely not be arguing for even higher taxes.