How come...

[jrydberg]

This chart illustrates clearly that revenue is not the problem. President Bush has, unfortunately, not followed President Clinton's example in restraining spending.

President Clinton was able to balance the budget because he held spending to relatively modest increases while revenue soared due to a booming economy. Conversely, President Bush has unleashed a torrent of spending while revenue has remained flat.

The answer to this problem is plain as day to me. Tax rates have nothing to do with it. Raising tax rates won't generate billions more in revenue, nor will lowering tax rates result in a long term drop in revenue. Control the spending -- that is the problem.

 

[Free4Life11]

I agree that spending is an issue. The problem is controlling the spending -- what stays and what goes.

And if you had greater revenue, you wouldn't have to cut as much of the spending.

 

[jrydberg]

I agree that spending is an issue, but what do you cut?

The funny thing is there's no need to actually "cut" anything. If every segment of the entire federal budget grew at a pace slightly higher than inflation, we'd be in good shape.

However, in my opinion, the answer to your question is everything. Every single part of the budget ought to be substantially cut. But then again, I'm more of a libertarian than anything, so my view probably isn't that popular

 

[Free4Life11]

Libertarian, eh?? I like a lot of their stuff (and don't they want to legalize pot? Right on!) although some of it is a little "extreme" for my liking, but some good points.

 

[dcentity2000]

This chart illustrates clearly that revenue is not the problem. President Bush has, unfortunately, not followed President Clinton's example in restraining spending.

President Clinton was able to balance the budget because he held spending to relatively modest increases while revenue soared due to a booming economy. Conversely, President Bush has unleashed a torrent of spending while revenue has remained flat.

The answer to this problem is plain as day to me. Tax rates have nothing to do with it. Raising tax rates won't generate billions more in revenue, nor will lowering tax rates result in a long term drop in revenue. Control the spending -- that is the problem.

How is President Bush conservative if he spends so much?

Come to that, how is President Clinton a socialist if he DIDN'T spend so much?



Rich::

 

[wvrevy]

Rich:

A - Because, on social issues, Bush is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. It's only fiscally that he behaves like a sailor on shore leave.
B - Because Clinton wanted to make sure that everybody in this country got healthcare coverage. (Horrible, ain't it ? )

 

[bcvillastwo]

He's (President Bush) refused to even discuss repealing his tax cuts to the rich in order to pay for Iraq

Gee the last time I looked at the issue of who pays federal tax and how much they pay I found the following.

The top 50% of tax files with reported incomes over $28,000 paid 96.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

The top 25% of tax filers with reported income of $56,000 or higher paid 83.9% of the taxes collect by IRS in 2002

The top 5% of the tax filers with reported incomes of $126,000 or more paid 53.80% of tax filers collected by IRS in 2002.

On the other hand those who were in the bottom 50% of those that filed taxes paid just 3.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

So, using this information who is "rich"? Those that make over $28,000? How about those who make over $56,000 or maybe those that make over $126,000. Collectively these people already pay nearly 100% of the taxes collected by IRS. Does anyone on these boards earn over $28,000. We if so you are already part of the group the pays almost 100% of the taxes collected from individuals.

This is how so many people are defining "rich" by the income they make. Unfortunately this isn't a measure of "rich". If someone earns $70,000 in many cities they will barely be ablle to sustain themselves. While in other localities this is pretty good income. Either way it isn't still doesn't reflect how "rich" they are.

On the other hand a person's assets minus their liabilities is the true measure of wealth and whether a person is "rich" or not. Most people start out poor (their assets are less than or equal to their liabilities) but over time the equations tends to change until they reach retirement age when in many cases their assets often far exceed their liabilities. Are these the people you want to pay more taxes? Or, would you rather have a young family pay more because they have a $70,000 to $100,000 income but their liabilities exceed their assets due to the fact they live in a high cost area such as Washington, DC.

So what do you mean by "rich"? Who should have their taxes increased and why? What is "fair" and why is it "fair".

Define your terms, tell us what you mean when you say "rich".

I get tired of hearing about tax cuts for the "rich". As it is the poor don't pay a thing. Oh by the way using some people's definition of poor works great for someone who has little income but instead has lots of assets and no liabilites. People like that love to be in the "poor" category because that means with their low incomes they don't pay much in taxes.

 

[dcentity2000]

Rich:

A - Because, on social issues, Bush is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. It's only fiscally that he behaves like a sailor on shore leave.
B - Because Clinton wanted to make sure that everybody in this country got healthcare coverage. (Horrible, ain't it ? )

OK, that's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard in a long while!

Perfectly put!



Rich::

 

[bcvillastwo]

If asked to pay more, I will.

Yea I bet if who ever your favorite politician asked you to pay more you would. I doubt that totally. No, like you said they simply set the rate and you pay it and if you don't then they force you to pay or put you in jail.

I think a couple of states actually have set up accounts for voluntary contributions but the effort has failed miserably because almost no one voluntarily contributes to government.

The spending I would like to see increased is for things like education......

Just once I would like to have someone show me a report that shows there is a correlation between education spending and increased results, e.g., our children are learning more and there is evidence to back it up.

On the contrary, every report I've seen suggests there is no correlation between spending and our children getting a better education. In our state children in some of the backward more poor sections where educational spending is less per student than in other more prosperous parts of the state acutally perform better on the whole. Then there is the often cited example of the amounts that are spent on public educationin Washington, DC (one of the highest per pupil spending rates in the nation) yet DC has some of the worst results around.

I don't need a spin-miester essay to tell me what went "right"...like everyone else, I could clearly see all that went wrong unfolding right there on my television screen.

First, there is no doubt that things went wrong and they went wrong at every single level of government. So pointing fingers is useless unless one just has an axe to grind about one political party or the other. Second, I seriously doubt that anyone under any circumstances could have adequately prepared for what happened in New Orleans. So we are faced with a whole lot of coulda, woulda, and shoulda which at the end of the day probably won't be all that helpful but we will have our commisssions, point blame, and feel good because yet again we are soothed by more eye wash. Third, even if we were "ready" it's doubtful that anyone could have gotten boots on the ground any sooner (after everything started to go wrong). There was one way in and one way out. If you know a thing about logistics you must realize that it takes time and energy to mobilize on the scale needed to deal with the problems that happened after the storm. Fourth, if you believe what the media was sending you without the benefit of "perspective" which those in the media rarely provide, then you are going to be mislead most of the time.

"Christian principles" ?!?

You might want to read Paul Johnson's book "A History of the American People" it provides a pretty comprehensive overview of our history including some pretty good reasoning on why we've been so successful as a country--not the least of which is based on our Judeao Christian morality (not perfect because we are all human, but pretty darned good). By the way Mr. Johnson is not an American, he's a Brit. So, he probably doesn't have the same axes to grind, or points to prove that our American historians may have.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children

Actually the middle class (not sure what constitutes the middle class) is already footing a large part of the bill (and guess what they always will). Using figures I cited earlier, I would say the middle class have incomes ranging from $56,000 and $92,000. If you accept that then for the tax year 2002, the middle class paid just over 34% of the taxes. If you increase the middle class income to $126,000 then the middle clase paid almost 50% of personal taxes collected by IRS for tax year 2002.

Those that make 7 figures are probably not going to pay the taxes you thing they will because they always seem to find legal ways to get around paying taxes (and they are often aided in this enterprise by those on both the left and right side of the aisle).

Nope the poor won't pay and neither will the wealthy. Only the middle class pays taxes.

 

[ThAnswr]

Then you deny that the tax cuts begun in 2001 have benefitted millions of families that aren't rich?

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.

However, now there are bills to be paid. And that is the issue. Who's rich and who isn't is not the issue. Cities have to be rebuilt, levees have to be redesigned, etc. and that takes money that we do not have. So you are left with 2 choices: a tax increase or cut spending and you couldn't find enough places to cut to pay for what's needed in this country. There is no stash of money via spending cuts just waiting for someone to find in this government.

 

[bsnyder]

Those that make 7 figures are probably not going to pay the taxes you thing they will because they always seem to find legal ways to get around paying taxes (and they are often aided in this enterprise by those on both the left and right side of the aisle).

 

[bsnyder]

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.

However, now there are bills to be paid. And that is the issue. Who's rich and who isn't is not the issue. Cities have to be rebuilt, levees have to be redesigned, etc. and that takes money that we do not have. So you are left with 2 choices: a tax increase or cut spending and you couldn't find enough places to cut to pay for what's needed in this country. There is no stash of money via spending cuts just waiting for someone to find in this government.

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

 

[BuckNaked]

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.

I only asked because you said I was "blowing smoke" regarding people benefitting from the tax cuts

 

[cats7494]

The tax cuts may have helped some people for a short period of time but it is definitely hurting us in the long run.

 

[DawnCt1]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

There is so much pork in the highway bill, the farm bill and a few other bills, that we could pay for Katrina and all go to WDW.

 

[wvrevy]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

Why don't you ask the Republican congress, Bet ?

 

[ThAnswr]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it. However, I don't believe you're going to come up with the dollars needed simply by cutting the "pork".

And here's an idea: Take a long, deep look into how the Defense Department is spending money. Now, you may start racking up those dollars.

 

[ThAnswr]

I only asked because you said I was "blowing smoke" regarding people benefitting from the tax cuts

What's a little smoke among friends?

 

[ThAnswr]

Gee the last time I looked at the issue of who pays federal tax and how much they pay I found the following.

The top 50% of tax files with reported incomes over $28,000 paid 96.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

The top 25% of tax filers with reported income of $56,000 or higher paid 83.9% of the taxes collect by IRS in 2002

The top 5% of the tax filers with reported incomes of $126,000 or more paid 53.80% of tax filers collected by IRS in 2002.

On the other hand those who were in the bottom 50% of those that filed taxes paid just 3.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

So, using this information who is "rich"? Those that make over $28,000? How about those who make over $56,000 or maybe those that make over $126,000. Collectively these people already pay nearly 100% of the taxes collected by IRS. Does anyone on these boards earn over $28,000. We if so you are already part of the group the pays almost 100% of the taxes collected from individuals.

This is how so many people are defining "rich" by the income they make. Unfortunately this isn't a measure of "rich". If someone earns $70,000 in many cities they will barely be ablle to sustain themselves. While in other localities this is pretty good income. Either way it isn't still doesn't reflect how "rich" they are.

On the other hand a person's assets minus their liabilities is the true measure of wealth and whether a person is "rich" or not. Most people start out poor (their assets are less than or equal to their liabilities) but over time the equations tends to change until they reach retirement age when in many cases their assets often far exceed their liabilities. Are these the people you want to pay more taxes? Or, would you rather have a young family pay more because they have a $70,000 to $100,000 income but their liabilities exceed their assets due to the fact they live in a high cost area such as Washington, DC.

So what do you mean by "rich"? Who should have their taxes increased and why? What is "fair" and why is it "fair".

Define your terms, tell us what you mean when you say "rich".

I get tired of hearing about tax cuts for the "rich". As it is the poor don't pay a thing. Oh by the way using some people's definition of poor works great for someone who has little income but instead has lots of assets and no liabilites. People like that love to be in the "poor" category because that means with their low incomes they don't pay much in taxes.

Do you have a link because there's something wrong with your numbers and I can't tell just what it is. Thanks in advance.