Kerry for the middle class?

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by disneycrazed139



BUSH'S TAX CUT REALITY:

In 2004, Top One Percent Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $35,000; Middle Class Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $647. The benefits of Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000--or 54 times more than middle-class families.

How many times more in tax dollars do they still pay?

George Bush's Plan Shifts the Tax Burden to the Middle Class.

Of course it doesn't, because the top 20% still pay 70% of the tax burden, hardly shifting the burden to the middle class.

George Bush has imposed a tax of thousands of dollars on families through higher costs for health care, gasoline, college tuition, and state and local taxes.

This is just rhetoric. One could argue that new legisltion passed by Congress and signed by the President have impacted these costs, but it's not a "tax." and it's silly to call it such. There are, of course, several factors to rising costs in the areas mentioned, not just the federal government.

 

[BuckNaked]

This is just rhetoric.

Yep, and dead wrong to boot.

 

[DisneyMomx7]

Originally posted by BuckNaked
DisneyMomx7 said:





You'll give up one tax cut that benefits everyone that pays income tax so that your kids won't be saddled with debt, but you'll be more than happy to take a tax cut that doesn't benefit everyone while still saddling your children with the same debt.

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with this picture is that people who are millionaires really don't need help sending their kids to college while middle class parents do. My sons college tuitions are $22,000, $33,000 and $36,000 respectively. They did get some scholarships and took out loans but that certainly doesn't cover it. So I would rather have the college tuition credit than the tax cut. Also with the record deficits that the Bush administration has accumulate they'd better all at least have a bachelor's degree in order to get a decent job since they ARE going to be saddled with the debt Bush has gotten us into.

 

[BuckNaked]

What's wrong with this picture is that people who are millionaires really don't need help sending their kids to college while middle class parents do.

It's not only the millionaires that are getting benefits from the tax cuts. The middle class parents could use the current tax cuts start some type of savings plan, say 529s, and by the time to their kids go to college, they'll have a leg up on the costs.

So I would rather have the college tuition credit than the tax cut.

And you think this won't add to the deficit much more than the current tax cuts?

I much prefer to tell people they can keep more of their money to spend as THEY choose, rather than telling them they can only keep it if they do x, y or z.

It is our money, after all.

 

[septbride2002]

Lets assume that DisneyMomx7 makes $60,000 per year. Then the tax cuts saved her $2,481.00 (using the first post as an example).

With the Tax Credit she gets $4000.00 in credit

4000 - 2481 = $1519 in dollars saved.

Plus:
Cut Tuition Costs. Average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges increased by 35 percent over the last four years. Because of tuition increases, an estimated 220,000 young people could not afford to enroll in four-year public universities last year. As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax Credit on $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer $10 billion in fiscal relief to states that restrain tuition growth. And he will launch a new National Service Plan that will allow young people to pay for college by serving their country.

Therefore for her the Kerry plan may work better. Just because it doesn't help you does not mean that it would not work for others.

~Amanda

 

[BuckNaked]

Therefore for her the Kerry plan may work better. Just because it doesn't help you does not mean that it would not work for others.

I absolutely agree that it would work better for her. But her stand doesn't seem to jibe with her concern for the deficit.

And I'm totally against ANY refundable tax credits. They are welfare payments, pure and simple. We should be getting rid of the ones we have now instead of adding more.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by dmadman43 Americans Don’t Need High Incomes
(2004-02-16) – Democrat presidential frontrunner John Forbes
Kerry, who favors raising taxes on families that earn more than
$200,000 annually, said today that “ordinary American families
don’t need that kind of loot.”
“There’s no legitimate reason why a commoner needs that
much cash,” said the multimillionaire senator who married the
heiress of the Heinz food fortune. “Joe and Sally Sixpack would
just waste the money on bland food, mall-store clothing, cookiecutter homes, tacky decorative items and education for their
mediocre spawn.”
Mr. Kerry said that raising taxes on anyone who crosses the
$200,000 threshold would “disincentify common folks from earning
too much,” thus reducing the demand for “crass products.”
“Higher taxes on such people will help prevent the debasing
of our culture, and put us on the road to becoming more like
Europe,” he said.

If that doesn't concern you, then you are so firmly entrenched as an elitest, you really need to move to Europe.

"Hey can I get me one of them tax rebater forms?" J. Kerry 10-26-2004

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by dmadman43
What ramifications would those be? And why would this be a Presidential issue. Seems to be a local community issue to me

Well this thread is basically about how the 'middle class' will be effected by the Kerry admin. right? In essence, most of us are concerned about how our choices will affect us on a personal level, right? I mean like taxes, employment, gay rights, pro-choice, pro-life, etc.

I am very concerned with social issues. I have a big problem with the 'moral majority' and the extreme right. Aren't Bush supporters, in essence supporting that contingent too? I'd be glad to elaborate further if you have any other questions.

 

[septbride2002]

And I'm totally against ANY refundable tax credits. They are welfare payments, pure and simple. We should be getting rid of the ones we have now instead of adding more.

Okay - I'll bite, how do you firgure they are welfare payments when people are working hard in the middle class and just trying to afford the best for their family in terms of education? ARe you saying that unless you can afford to pay for tuition in full that people shouldn't go to college?

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Okay - I'll bite, how do you firgure they are welfare payments when people are working hard in the middle class and just trying to afford the best for their family in terms of education? ARe you saying that unless you can afford to pay for tuition in full that people shouldn't go to college?

~Amanda

Here's a concept. Rather than give people THEIR money back, why not just let them keep it in the first place. If you don't pay taxes you don't deserve to get back MORE money than you paid in. Otherwise you are getting SOMEONE ELSES money.
What right do you have to MY MONEY?

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Okay - I'll bite, how do you firgure they are welfare payments when people are working hard in the middle class and just trying to afford the best for their family in terms of education? ARe you saying that unless you can afford to pay for tuition in full that people shouldn't go to college?

~Amanda

No, I'm not saying that at all. But refundable tax credits of any kind are welfare payments, and they should be eliminated.

If my tax liability is $3000 and I have $4000 in tax credits, my tax liability should go to $0. I should not receive a check for $1000.

That's a blatant redistribution of wealth, and should be stopped.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Well this thread is basically about how the 'middle class' will be effected by the Kerry admin. right? In essence, most of us are concerned about how our choices will affect us on a personal level, right? I mean like taxes, employment, gay rights, pro-choice, pro-life, etc.

I am very concerned with social issues. I have a big problem with the 'moral majority' and the extreme right. Aren't Bush supporters, in essence supporting that contingent too? I'd be glad to elaborate further if you have any other questions.

Pro-choice is a euphamism. You and I both know that. I have no idea what "pro-life" means. To me that would mean there is a contingent that is "anti-life". Who do you know that is "anti-life"? . Gays have the same "rights" as we all do. I know of no situation where they have been denied a right. I'm open to examples, but it is probably worthy of a separate thread, not really relevant here.

I'm not sure the relevance of your "moral majority" comment, viz a vis taxes. Employment is not the responsibility of the federal government, it is part of the free market. I have a big problem with the exterme left. So, what does one do?

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Here is what I see for someone that earns $70K per year they lose 15.89% of their income to taxes.
Someone earning $100,000 loses 18.64% of their income to taxes.
The person earning $100,000 makes a little more then 42% more a year then the other guy but only pays 2.75% more in taxes.

~Amanda

Amanda, don't look at percentages, they are misleading. Using you numbers above:

$100K pays $18,640.00 in taxes
$ 70K pays $11,123.00 in taxes


In real numbers that is $7,517.00 more in taxes or SIXTY EIGHT percent greater taxes. Not the 2.75% you incorrectly quoted! Why? Do they use more resources (fire/ems/police - no, they use them all much less!) Do they have 30 children who are feeding at the public education trough? No, the higher the income, the lower the number of children.

Wait, someone went to College and earns 70K, someone else spent 4 years in medical school, 4 years in residency, owes $145,000.00 in education loans (which they repay BTW!), and took a $250,000.00 line of credit to start a medical practice, and you and Kerry want to punsih the person who has worked harder and longer, by taking more of their money, to redistribute to some welfare abuser, who suprise normally votes Democratic.

In my personal case when I switched jobs, my income went up about 500% but my taxes (the amount actually paid!) went up over 1,190% Why?

A flat 10 to 15% from everyone, whether you earn $1,000.00 or $1,000,000,000.00 a year, now that would be fair

 

[BuckNaked]

Thanks snarfer1, I pointed the same thing out to septbride2002 earlier. 42% more income, 67% more taxes.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
What's wrong with this picture is that people who are millionaires really don't need help sending their kids to college while middle class parents do. My sons college tuitions are $22,000, $33,000 and $36,000 respectively. They did get some scholarships and took out loans but that certainly doesn't cover it. So I would rather have the college tuition credit than the tax cut. Also with the record deficits that the Bush administration has accumulate they'd better all at least have a bachelor's degree in order to get a decent job since they ARE going to be saddled with the debt Bush has gotten us into.

Again, this class envy just drives me nuts. What business is it of anyone how much a millionare can or can't afford? I agree Bush spends too much money, but the solution to that is not taxing people more, it's CUTTING SPENDING? I would LOVE to hear ANY politician tell me what program he is in favor of cutting that is not a military expenditure.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Plus:
Cut Tuition Costs. Average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges increased by 35 percent over the last four years. Because of tuition increases, an estimated 220,000 young people could not afford to enroll in four-year public universities last year. As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax Credit on $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer $10 billion in fiscal relief to states that restrain tuition growth. And he will launch a new National Service Plan that will allow young people to pay for college by serving their country.

Therefore for her the Kerry plan may work better. Just because it doesn't help you does not mean that it would not work for others.

~Amanda

Reducing college tuition is a state issue not a Federal Issue. What Federal colleges do we have in this country? AGAIN, a TAX CREDIT is not money that is magically produced. Taxpayers pay for tax credits. If you pay less than and extra $4000 in taxes, then part of that money is coming from me. What right do you have to MY MONEY?

 

[septbride2002]

Wait, someone went to College and earns 70K, someone else spent 4 years in medical school, 4 years in residency, owes $145,000.00 in education loans (which they repay BTW!), and took a $250,000.00 line of credit to start a medical practice, and you and Kerry want to punsih the person who has worked harder and longer, by taking more of their money, to redistribute to some welfare abuser, who suprise normally votes Democratic.

First of all I don't personally want to punish anyone so please watch you insinuations. Second I work for a nation wide bank in the mortgage department ya want to know who has the worse credit scores on average? Doctors and Lawyers - why - because they don't pay back their student loans. The group on average that does pay back their loans are nurses, teachers, and engineers (because they are meticulous).

If a Dr. were take a $250,000 line of credit to open their practice then more then likely they are not claiming any income on their tax returns. I look at returns all day long - and self-employed, lawyers, and Doctors typically claim between $25,000 to $50,000 a year in income and the rest of it is all filtered through (completely legal) business deductions. So spare me the high and mighty act.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

Reducing college tuition is a state issue not a Federal Issue. What Federal colleges do we have in this country? AGAIN, a TAX CREDIT is not money that is magically produced. Taxpayers pay for tax credits. If you pay less than and extra $4000 in taxes, then part of that money is coming from me. What right do you have to MY MONEY?

Okay - first off I am not stating that someone not paying taxes deserves tax credits - I am trying to understand the difference between refundable and non-refundable at the time - that is why I asked the question. So even if you are not meaning to you are coming across with a lot of freaking attitude and I am asking you now to drop it.

But what I do see is that if a family is earning $50,000 a year and paying their taxes like a good citizen I don't see why a tax credit for their child's education would be such a bad thing. It benefits them - it doesn't for you so vote for Bush - I don't care but you should not belittle people because maybe those tax credits would help them out. Again - you don't know the circumstances until you walk in another person's shoes. And there but by the grace of God do you not find yourself in their position one day.

~Amanda

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by septbride2002
First of all I don't personally want to punish anyone so please watch you insinuations. Second I work for a nation wide bank in the mortgage department ya want to know who has the worse credit scores on average? Doctors and Lawyers - why - because they don't pay back their student loans. The group on average that does pay back their loans are nurses, teachers, and engineers (because they are meticulous).

If a Dr. were take a $250,000 line of credit to open their practice then more then likely they are not claiming any income on their tax returns. I look at returns all day long - and self-employed, lawyers, and Doctors typically claim between $25,000 to $50,000 a year in income and the rest of it is all filtered through (completely legal) business deductions. So spare me the high and mighty act.

~Amanda

And I suppose the trial lawyers have nothing to do with the malpractice crisis, or vaccine shortages.

In NJ, you can not get or maintain a Physician license if you owe student loans (in arrears) or child support. (Because so many Doctors were defaulting on their student loans and child support!) National surveys prove your anecdotal statements about income are just that. No Doctor could fund their retirement on claimed (w2) amounts of $25,000.00, they usually claim W-2 of $160,000.00 to maximize their 401K, and profit sharing plans. (Roughly $40K limits or 25% maximum coimbined, unless you get really creative) Why don't you talk to a real bank, or mortgage company. How many $25,000.00 a year earners can afford a $1,000,000.00 mortgage? (I know, Kerry will enable all $25,000.00 a year earners to buy million dollar homes, as he pays for their college education!)

Hey can I get a $250,000.00 line of credit from you too? I can show $25,000.00 W-2 earnings that ALL the Doctors and Lawyers you know do!

Congrats. You've made my ignore list as well.

-Tony

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Okay - first off I am not stating that someone not paying taxes deserves tax credits - I am trying to understand the difference between refundable and non-refundable at the time - that is why I asked the question. So even if you are not meaning to you are coming across with a lot of freaking attitude and I am asking you now to drop it.

But what I do see is that if a family is earning $50,000 a year and paying their taxes like a good citizen I don't see why a tax credit for their child's education would be such a bad thing. It benefits them - it doesn't for you so vote for Bush - I don't care but you should not belittle people because maybe those tax credits would help them out. Again - you don't know the circumstances until you walk in another person's shoes. And there but by the grace of God do you not find yourself in their position one day.

~Amanda

Again, rather than give them back other people's money, why not just REDUCE THEIR TAXES UP FRONT???? If a family is earning 50K and paying their taxes and their tax obligation is more than $4K, why not just reduce their taxes up front by $4K.
Either way you are impacting the amount of revenue the govt takes in. If they are giving you back more money than you paid in, then it's got be coming from somewhere else. I'm not belittling people, I'm belittling the concept of people thinking they need to get back more than they paid in. It becomes someone elses money at that point, and that's wealth redistribution. You are making assumption that because I'm against that concept I've never been in that situation. How logical is that? I found plenty of ways to afford college without govt assistance and my family could barely make ends meet. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but since you made the unfounded assumption, I thought I'd correct you. There are plenty of sources of money out there for people to go to college without getting the Federal Govt involved.