Bush and Kerry Tax plans

[Flatrater]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-09.cfm

Here is a side by side comparsion of tax plans under Bush and Kerry. See the site it has charts and more info than I can cut and paste.

[Raz_Kaz]

Myabe you should have watched Bushs Top Ten Tax Plans on The Late Night Show With David Letterman....quite interesting and funny!

[taranaki]

You really believe that either of them will be accountable for anything they promised once the election is over? You mug.

[YogsVR4]

There is clearly a difference between the socialist spending habbits of Kerry and the socialist spending habbits of Bush. The big difference is how it gets paid for. Kerry think digging deeper into the pocketbooks of workers, Bush cuts taxes to spur investments which generate jobs and increase tax receipts (notice that they are higher then they've ever been - after the tax cut).

Clearly, taxes can't be cut to zero, but income taxes can be eliminated and replaced with use taxes and sales taxes.

[lazysmurff]

they are both boobs

no matter what way you slice it, under each president, the rich will get richer and the poor will keep barely hangin on.

[tenguzero]

I'll second that one. I just saw my school loan rates jump another quarter percent. Hey, I've got an idea, how about we scale that difference in monthly payments compared to what I get paid, and bump my paycheck up accordingly as well? I mean, after all, this economy is really getting healthier

There's a reason concern for jobs and the economy rank as the number one election issue in the polls of college students and recent grads: because for the most part, our job prospects suck. I was FINALLY able to land a new job after over half a year of searching, and it's no where near what my education and background is in, includes an element of danger (it's in loss prevention for Stop n' Shop, and one never knows who they'll be face to face with when confronting a shoplifter,) and has a starting pay rate of $9.50. That's right, I don't even make $10 an hour. It's a good thing rent is reasonable for the apartment I live in.

See, this is what happens- the push is to get people to spend money by giving them stupid little refunds. But where's the money that is actually spent on goods going? Certainly not towards employment and payrolls (at least, not in THIS country. India, now that's another story.) So at any rate, the assumption was that people will hopefully spend the money on goods and services to help bolster the economy, you know, give 'em a little "mad money." And yet that little "incentive" is negated, by high prices at the pump (because this country is so determined to hold onto it's ridiculous fossil fuel requirements,) rising interest rates, rising tuition costs, and fewer job opportunities for the younger generations -- even though we're concidered to be the prime possessors of "disposable" income (the kind of money that fuels commerce. ) So I ask you, where's MY disposable income? My paychecks aren't getting any larger, but my loan rates, tuition rates and cost of living bills (all of which fall under the umbrella theme of "taxes") sure are.

But I suppose this is why the economy at large is such a concern amongst the people right now. If everything really was going "better," it wouldn't be.

[igor@af]

Just a little insight :

Bush tax cuts have prompted the government to sell dramatically more bonds to pay for 'things'. These bonds have an interest that comes along with them. The government has to pay this interest to whoever purchases these bonds. Take a wild guess who usually buys federal bonds... yes - those who can afford to - the rich.

So a summary. Bush tax cuts for the rich gave a lot of their money back and now the government is borrowing that same money it gave back as a tax cut under an interest from the same rich people. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

And the tax payers, including middle income and poor are the ones paying for this interest to the rich.

Does this make economic / mathematic sense to you?
Didn't think so

[RSX-S777]

As long as I'm helping the rich pay for a new car that I could never dream of affording, I'm happy...I live to give (to the wealthy).

[TexasF355F1]

There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. This may not be the best example, but if any of you have seen Chris Rock's latest HBO special he talks about something similar to this. Once a lot of poorer people have some money what do they do with it? They spend it on stuipd ass shit. They go buy $10,000 rims for their '84 Cutlas so they can "bling bling". If they held on to that $10,000, put $5,000 of it in savings and the other $5,000 into an investment such as bonds or stock market then they would be doing themselves a favor.

There are a lot of "rich" people who have crawled their way up from the bottom to get to the top. When I was born my parents didn't have much at all. My mom quit her job to stay home and raise me, while my dad worked a day and night job to support the three of us, and give us a good life. I really think starting in grade school, there should be a mandatory class of personal finance management. It would explain how to manage your money, in savings and investments. Granted not everyone has the mentallity of saving money and will continue to live check by check. But it could at least help a few who are less fortunate to start saving young, so that when they are older they can pass it on to their kids slowly move up the economic class ladder.

It takes money to make money, but first you have to learn to save money.

[kman10587]

IMO, the president doesn't have jack shit to do with the economy. It's pretty dumb to praise Clinton for getting us a budget surplus and it's pretty dumb to praise Bush for stimulating the post 9/11 economy.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by kman10587

IMO, the president doesn't have jack shit to do with the economy. It's pretty dumb to praise Clinton for getting us a budget surplus and it's pretty dumb to praise Bush for stimulating the post 9/11 economy.

Actually there is some truth to that. I've discussed this with all of my economic and finance teachers in past semesters and they all said the same thing. They also described why that was, but I don't remember what each one said and I don't want to put words in their mouths that weren't said.

I just remembered one other thing. If Kerry takes office, I'm going to get royally fucked on my stock dividends. And end up having to pay 35% taxes on them. Then he's probably going to tax my trust fund to hell as well, where as of right now it's set up so I'm not taxed.

[YogsVR4]

I feel really bad when people can't do better then say 'tax cut for the rich'


Its a tax cut to the people earning INCOME. Maybe if I used a different font, it might help INCOME. It has nothing to do with being rich. There is not weath tax. A simple example. You win the lottery - 50 million. You'll pay 20 million in taxes (guestimate) and you are left with 30 million. Aside from paying 20 million dollars, I bet you're still pretty happy and you are certainly rich. How much money do you pay in taxes on that money next year? Zero. Not one dime. If we raise taxes? Still zero. Lower taxes. Zero again.

The problem here isn't tax cuts, its a colossal failure to reign in spending. Congress won't do it. Bush didn't do it. The electorate keeps putting spenders into office. We need to quit blaming the income side for deficit spending. No business can get away with it, but we'll let government do it. The first and foremost place to change this is the House of Representatives.

To start with, move the representative level to four years instead of two. This will keep them from being so quick to approve spending measures that ingratiate them to their constituencies and give them a better chance at doing what’s right.

Secondly, ensure the president has line item veto authority. Just removing pork barrel spending can cut billions.

Third. Instead of passing a balanced budget amendment, pass a budget authority amendment. When a recession is going on, allow up to 4% deficit spending of GDP to get/keep the economy rolling (which is what happened last year). There is nothing wrong with deficits. We all have it. Buy a house, take a loan for education. These things will pay off in the long run. The same thing is true for government.

Putting out bonds is just another term for putting out secured loans. What are these loans for? So businesses can be opened, expanded or stay on there feet. These businesses employ people. These people pay taxes. Bonds only become bad when their rate of return skyrockets. It puts to much of a burden on the system and employment sufferers.

The deficit is a large amount. In proportion, its not a worry in and of itself. The trend is the worry. Regardless of who has been president the last few decades, the tendency is to spend like there’s no tomorrow. Every year, spending increases across the board at more then the rate of inflation. 1.9 trillion. Think about that, the federal government took in 1.9 trillion dollars last year and it wasn’t enough. Of course you’ll hear how it was a tax cut that caused all the problem, but 1.9 trillion wasn’t enough. Only four or five countries in the world even have a GDP that high. That’s not even counting the 500 billion collected in state and local taxes (and they are crying that it isn’t enough).

Until someone can argue effectively that over 2 trillion dollars a year is insufficient to run a government – I see no reason that taxes should be raised on anyone for any reason.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Until someone can argue effectively that over 2 trillion dollars a year is insufficient to run a government – I see no reason that taxes should be raised on anyone for any reason.

the federal government spends 1 million dollars every 5 seconds. in the time is took me to type this post, the government spent roughly 9 million dollars on crap.

Yogs for prez.