Hillary Clinton --- Is this true?

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Actually there was a thread in the last couple of days complaining because Kerry opted for a lower tax rate on his state income tax.

Apparently some conservatives think the rich should offer to pay more than they have to.

I saw that thread and posted to it but haven't read it since. But see there's the difference. You said they should OFFER to pay more. There are people out there that think you should be FORCED to pay more.

Do you believe that people who make a lot of money should be forced to pay a higher tax rate on their income?

I don't. If they want to, that's their choice.

If you do, why not have them pay a higher sales tax rate or other no income tax rate for things they buy? Heck, they can afford it and the extra money would be welcome in state and local coffers.

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
But my other question is would you send in extra (I don't know if you can but I'd be surprised if you couldn't) above the tax cuts?

why should anyone send in extra? that makes no sense.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
There are people out there that think you should be FORCED to pay more.

Do you believe that people who make a lot of money should be forced to pay a higher tax rate on their income?


If you do, why not have them pay a higher sales tax rate or other no income tax rate for things they buy? Heck, they can afford it and the extra money would be welcome in state and local coffers.

I'm certainly against the recent tax breaks that were given. This country could not afford them. It's not just that they favored the rich, which they did, but I don't think there should have been cuts for anyone.

Am I for a true tax increase? No, but a rollback on the cuts that should've never been made is fine with me. I'm more extreme than Kerry....I say roll them all back.

 

[peachgirl]

Btw, we need to be very careful here....it's close to getting substantive and someone's going to have give jyrdbyrg a heads up or he'll be really upset....

 

[cheyita]

**Nothing Substantive Here**

Wow. I'm just amazed. At the beginning of the political season, several posted their predictions and concerns that this will not be a fun place to hang out until the election. Yes - avoid political threads if you don't want to read it. But I do enjoy political discussions; it's just that I am seeing the same conversations going on over and over and over again on tons of threads by the same six or so people. Aren't you guys exhausted?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I'm certainly against the recent tax breaks that were given. This country could not afford them. It's not just that they favored the rich, which they did, but I don't think there should have been cuts for anyone.

Am I for a true tax increase? No, but a rollback on the cuts that should've never been made is fine with me. I'm more extreme than Kerry....I say roll them all back.

Not to be flip (at least not right now), that wasn't what I asked.

Do you believe that people who have higher incomes (don't even call them rich). should pay at a higher rate? If you do, why? And if you do, why stop with income tax?

And lastly, would you send your recent tax cut back (if you could) and/or would you voluntarily pay more?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by caitycaity
why should anyone send in extra? that makes no sense.

Exactly my point.

Why should some be forced to pay more (higher rate) than others?

The question was for all those that believe the rich should pay more and the recent tax cuts should be rolled back. Is there anyone that really believes they aren'y paying ENOUGH taxes?

 

[bsears]

Didn't president Bush say just the other day that there was no point in rolling back the tax cuts for the rich because they would just find a way to avoid them anyway? I would think that is the problem most have with the rich and their taxes. That they have the ability to avoid paying a proportionate share.

 

[caitycaity]

Exactly my point.

no sorry, that wasn't exactly your point. i was saying it wouldn't make sense to send in more if the tax rate was the same. for example, why would people *voluntarily* pay more than they had to. that's different than giving your tax break back, and it's also different than requiring people to pay more.

 

[jrydberg]

Alert! Alert! Step away from the substantive discussion and put your hands in the air!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by caitycaity
no sorry, that wasn't exactly your point. i was saying it wouldn't make sense to send in more if the tax rate was the same. for example, why would people *voluntarily* pay more than they had to. that's different than giving your tax break back, and it's also different than requiring people to pay more.

I didn't see you mention anything about tax rates being the same but that really wouldn't matter IMO.

My point was that it makes no sense for someone to voluntarily pay more. Just as it makes no sense to force some to pay a higher percentage than others.

But with all the complaining about the tax cuts, I thought it would be interesting to know if it was just all talk and if someone would actually turn it down (or back in) or even pay more than required if they were really concerned about the deficit. I know I wouldn't send in any more than required and I would like to pay less and have them spend less.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by bsears
Didn't president Bush say just the other day that there was no point in rolling back the tax cuts for the rich because they would just find a way to avoid them anyway? I would think that is the problem most have with the rich and their taxes. That they have the ability to avoid paying a proportionate share.

Wouldn't that be just the opposite?

If they are taxed at the 35 percent rate and find loopholes and deductions to bring the rate down to be more in line (percentage wise) with lower income earners, why would that be a bad thing?

I asked before if anyone knew what their effective tax liability was but was told that it didn't matter. I think it does. My effective tax rate last year (after deductions) was about 11 percent. So it really doesn't matter what my full tax rate is. If someone who makes WAY more than me can get his effective rate much lower than that, more power to them because I don't feel that they should be obligated (read forced) to pay more. The problem is with the tax system. That's what should be fixed. Also, it's people with money that create jobs. So if they are allowed to keep more of their money, they can invest it with the possibility of creating more jobs Do you think that you will ever get a job from someone who makes very little money?

Do you know what your effective tax rate is?

 

[caitycaity]

My point was that it makes no sense for someone to voluntarily pay more. Just as it makes no sense to force some to pay a higher percentage than others.

i think we are spekaing two different languages. i'm going to do as jrydberg says and put my hands up.

there is a difference between voluntarily giving away money and being forced to. they're not the same thing. i don't understand why you keep equating them.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Do you know what your effective tax rate is?

Speaking of "redirection"

My David Duke comment was just as substantive as your asinine accusation that Michael Moore is the "poster child" for the Democratic party. There is absolutely no difference...and yes, I'd much rather have Moore's company than Duke's...

Secondly, you've taken one sentence fragment (not even the whole sentence) and tried to steer the debate away from the original point. The dems were accused of something, and I defended them. That's the whole argument. It had nothing to do with taxes, other than to say that reckless spending on an unnecessary war shouldn't be paid for by our grandchildren just so that the president can score political points with voters for giving them a tax break. Period.

Tax breaks are a wonderful thing...unless the goverment is running up record defecits to pay for them. See, there is a time for that kind of thing, and entering a war that has now cost well over 100 BILLION dollars probably wasn't it. I would think a fiscal conservative would know that, but apparently not

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by caitycaity
there is a difference between voluntarily giving away money and being forced to. they're not the same thing. i don't understand why you keep equating them.

I'm equating them because neither of them make sense.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy


My David Duke comment was just as substantive as your asinine accusation that Michael Moore is the "poster child" for the Democratic party. There is absolutely no difference...and yes, I'd much rather have Moore's company than Duke's...

Well if MM isn't the poster child for the Dems, why was he treated like royalty at the convention?

And to be honest, I'd prefer MM over DD too.

Secondly, you've taken one sentence fragment (not even the whole sentence) and tried to steer the debate away from the original point. The dems were accused of something, and I defended them. That's the whole argument. It had nothing to do with taxes, other than to say that reckless spending on an unnecessary war shouldn't be paid for by our grandchildren just so that the president can score political points with voters for giving them a tax break. Period.

If the tax cuts become permanent and the economy continues to improve, how is this a burden for your grandchildren?

Tax breaks are a wonderful thing...unless the government is running up record deficits to pay for them. See, there is a time for that kind of thing, and entering a war that has now cost well over 100 BILLION dollars probably wasn't it. I would think a fiscal conservative would know that, but apparently not

The war is a done deal. The money needs to be spent. Given that, do you believe that a "war tax" would be better than a tax cut in stimulating the economy?

It's a know fact that if people have more money to spend and they're confident about the state of the economy and their jobs, they will spend more money which stimulates an even better economy.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Well if MM isn't the poster child for the Dems, why was he treated like royalty at the convention?

And to be honest, I'd prefer MM over DD too. [/B]

Umm, Did Michael Moore give a speech, 'cause I must have missed that ? Last time I checked, the democratic party doesn't control what the press does, no matter how many times they're accused of doing so. Moore was not "treated like royalty", he was treated as every other celebrity visitor to the convention. Period.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
If the tax cuts become permanent and the economy continues to improve, how is this a burden for your grandchildren?[/B]

Umm...The deficit could take decades to pay down from it's current record heights...

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
The war is a done deal. The money needs to be spent. Given that, do you believe that a "war tax" would be better than a tax cut in stimulating the economy?[/B]

I believe that spending billions while trying to hold onto a tax cut for political purposes is irresponsible, as do quite a few members of the Republican party. Since when did fiscal responsibility become such a bad thing ?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
It's a know fact that if people have more money to spend and they're confident about the state of the economy and their jobs, they will spend more money which stimulates an even better economy. [/B]

Lol....You think people are "confident about the economy and their jobs" ? What country are you living in ?

 

[bsears]

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 13 Aug 2004 at 03:15:03 PM GMT is:

$7,334,519,089,578.18

The estimated population of the United States is 293,934,237
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,952.92.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!



http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Alert! Alert! Step away from the substantive discussion and put your hands in the air!

You're too late...sad isn't it?

Hang around, I'm quite positive this is just a passing phase and we'll be back to discussing who did what to whom (or is that who??? anyone care to start a discussion on that??) and who did it first.

Not to be flip (at least not right now), that wasn't what I asked. Do you believe that people who have higher incomes (don't even call them rich). should pay at a higher rate? If you do, why? And if you do, why stop with income tax?

Oops, my bad.

At a higher rate than they are now, or than others pay? Regardless, the answer to both would be yes. If their rate was 35%, the problem is the wealthy ( for these purposes, let's say over $500,000) not only find ways to reduce that rate (no problem there for the most part), but manage to get out of paying taxes altogether.

I have no facts to back it up, but I'd guess if we went to a flat 10% tax, the wealthy would, for the most part, see a huge tax increase.

Why should they? Because they can. Taxes have to come from somewhere. We need more revenue than we have now. Where would you suggest we get it from? The poor? Tax the middle income earners more?

Why stop there? Where else would you suggest taxing them?

Didn't president Bush say just the other day that there was no point in rolling back the tax cuts for the rich because they would just find a way to avoid them anyway?

Yes, he certainly did. Brilliant, huh?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Umm...The deficit could take decades to pay down from it's current record heights...

If I'm not mistake, isn't there always a deficit?

I believe that spending billions while trying to hold onto a tax cut for political purposes is irresponsible, as do quite a few members of the Republican party. Since when did fiscal responsibility become such a bad thing ?

That wasn't the question. I asked if you thought a "war tax" or the current tax cut would be better to stimulate the economy.(and when there's a strong economy, the government takes in more tax dollars without having to raise tax rates or impose new ones).

Why do you believe that the tax cuts were done for political reasons? What results do you think they were after? More votes? I just don't understand why anyone would question the motives behind the government wanting to allow you to keep more of your own money. Personally, I don't care what reason they had. It's my money and I want to keep as much of it as possible.

And yes, I think that being fiscally responsible is a good thing. But I think that the spending on the war was necessary but the spending on that white elephant prescription drug program was not. That costs WAY more than the war and over a longer period of time. Aren't you concerned how that will affect the next generations? I think you're looking at the tax cuts in a vacuum. I think of it as more of an investment. Take some risks in the beginning to gain benefits in the long run.

Lol....You think people are "confident about the economy and their jobs" ? What country are you living in ?

Yes, I do. But there will always be some people who aren't. There will always be people who struggle. There will always be people have ups and downs in their income levels. We will never have Utopia.

(adding a little redirection) And you think that Kerry will make it better? What's his plan for reducing the deficit? More taxes?

What did you plan to do about your tax cut (whatever the amount is)? And since you are concerned (as I am) about the spending, do you plan to voluntarily offer more money to pay off the deficit?