Slashdot Mirror

We're awfully close to having half of the population being able to soak the other half of the population...a Bad Thing for the continued health of our nation.

On the contrary! Take a look at Scandinavian income taxes. In Sweden for example, they have two tax brackets, 0% and 57% -- the top bracket begins at 10% above the mean wage. Therefore, most Swedes pay no income tax; less than half pay all. Do you think Sweden isn't healthy? They have 3.5 more years of life expectancy than we do, the longest in the world. The also have the lowest infant mortality in the world. Their poverty rate is 0.2%, so low that the CIA reports it as "NA%". They have low (2.2%) inflation and (4%) unemployment, and national debt. Their GDP growth and spending power denominated by cost of living is on par with that of the U.S. They lead Europe in literacy and access to health care. They provide their citizens and immigrants with free education through four years of college. They have less than 1% unmet demand for daycare. They have a vibrant economy at all levels, from sole proprietorships (no impovrished underclass to provide cheap labor for mom-and-pop-killing Wal-Marts) to multinationals (e.g., Ikea, Ericsson, Volvo, Saab, etc.)

If you are interested in learning the truth about tax policy, I recommend Citizens for Tax Justice -- in particular their graph of marginal tax rates

Far from `forgetting' that jobless rates were getting worse.... Now, the economy is booming, and job creation ... is occurring at record rates.

So, then, explain why the unemployment rate was lower in March than it is now. Must be all that trickle-down from the tax cuts.

I'm also fascinated by your insistence on pulling the word `socialism' into the debate. Why don't you tell us, then: Do you think socialism works? Do you think it is the solution the US should pursue? Do you think Dean will bring the US closer to socialism, if elected?

What the hell do you think Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are? Objectivism?

The United States is already socialist and has been since the imposition of the income tax. The only question is a matter of defgree, in particular, how regressive or progressive the socialist "redistribution of wealth" actually is in practice. Right now, it's about as regressive as it gets, and IMHO only our very strong but rapidly emigrating industrial base is proping us up.

You and your supply-side trickle-down ilk have been brainwashed by the rich to lobby for more tax cuts, for them, of course. They tell you all kinds of things about how you deserve a $300 check from a plan that gives them around 10% cut on their top bracket. Or perhaps you are one of those rich in question, in which case you are selling out the future of your country.

To answer your question directly, I think progressive socialism works, but the kind of regressive socialism we've had under Bush shrinks the middle class and balloons the debt. I think the U.S. should immediatly adopt a two-bracket income tax with (1) the bottom bracket being 0%, as in the Scandinavian countries, (2) the top bracket beginning at 10% above the median wage, as in Sweden's national income tax, and (3) the top bracket percentage set to the value that would balance the budget and pay down the national debt over ten years. Moreover, I think we should adopt a Canadian-style single-payer health care system, expand Head Start into universal daycare, and provide universal tuition grants for all public university students. Furthermore, I think we should also prop up teacher salaries in those areas where local property taxes are so sparse that they can't compete.

Take the top 5 years of American history in which discretionary spending increased the most (as a percentage of the previous year's spending). Two of those years were during WWII. Three of them were under a GOP-dominated Congress within the last five years. So much for Republican's lowering spending!

Even supposedly "tax-and-spend" president Bill Clinton managed to only have a 3.5% increase in discretionary spending during his administration (with a 0.7% decrease in non-defense discretionary spending). Reagan was famous for increasing discretionary spending 7%, while GWB has increased discretionary spending 15.6% and has increased non-defense spending a whopping 20.8% in merely three years of office! This has led to a whopping $450 billion dollar budget deficit for this year alone.

From the fiscally-conservative Cato Institute: here and here

This is in spite of approving huge tax-cuts to the rich in spite of the fact that we already have some of the lowest taxes in the world. This has twice required massive accounting trickery and Congressional action to avoid having our nation default on its debt. Bush is driving us into the ground with his lunatic economics! All of the recovery under the Republican "Contract with America" and under the Clinton administration has been brushed aside by Bush reckless combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Remember back when Clinton said that we were looking at an end to the national debt after paying off $600 billion and with it at a mere $5.7 billion back in 2000 instead of the $6.8 trillion that it is now?

In the mean time, Howard Dean has managed to keep a balanced budget on his state for 10 years, through two recessions all while paying for the social programs that needed support. Maybe we should compare Bush's record as a governor? It's pretty obvious who's gonna be better as President if you're looking to see the deficit taken care of. Then again, if you weren't aware of Bush's spend-thrift ways to begin with, you probably won't bother to read the links and get informed.

Take the top 5 years of American history in which discretionary spending increased the most (as a percentage of the previous year's spending). Two of those years were during WWII. Three of them were under a GOP-dominated Congress within the last five years. So much for Republican's lowering spending!

Even supposedly "tax-and-spend" president Bill Clinton managed to only have a 3.5% increase in discretionary spending during his administration (with a 0.7% decrease in non-defense discretionary spending). Reagan was famous for increasing discretionary spending 7%, while GWB has increased discretionary spending 15.6% and has increased non-defense spending a whopping 20.8% in merely three years of office! This has led to a whopping $450 billion dollar budget deficit for this year alone.

From the fiscally-conservative Cato Institute: here and here

This is in spite of approving huge tax-cuts to the rich in spite of the fact that we already have some of the lowest taxes in the world. This has twice required massive accounting trickery and Congressional action to avoid having our nation default on its debt. Bush is driving us into the ground with his lunatic economics! All of the recovery under the Republican "Contract with America" and under the Clinton administration has been brushed aside by Bush reckless combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Remember back when Clinton said that we were looking at an end to the national debt after paying off $600 billion and with it at a mere $5.7 billion back in 2000 instead of the $6.8 trillion that it is now?

In the mean time, Howard Dean has managed to keep a balanced budget on his state for 10 years, through two recessions all while paying for the social programs that needed support. Maybe we should compare Bush's record as a governor? It's pretty obvious who's gonna be better as President if you're looking to see the deficit taken care of. Then again, if you weren't aware of Bush's spend-thrift ways to begin with, you probably won't bother to read the links and get informed.

just because the tax cuts help people who actually pay taxes doesn't mean they just went to the rich. Hell, I got a tax cut and don't think I'm anywhere near rich.

Neverless, it was a tax cut for the rich. While the rich got a feast from this tax cut, you just got a couple scraps thrown to you so you wouldn't wimper or growl. See:

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

Perhaps, like most of those whose income decreases due to bad times or a poor economy, the RIAA and the MPAA ought to apply for public aid. After all, this has been a effective solution for many in the corporate world:

• Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years.
• Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years.
• GE received $12 billion in corporate tax welfare.
• Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.
• Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate's total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.[*]

From 1996 through 2000, just ten large profitable companies enjoyed a total of $50 billion in corporate tax breaks. Almost makes you feel sorry.....almost.... because I am sure they could belly up to the corporate welfare bar, and leave us all alone!

Perhaps, like most of those whose income decreases due to bad times or a poor economy, the RIAA and the MPAA ought to apply for public aid. After all, this has been a effective solution for many in the corporate world:

• Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years.
• Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years.
• GE received $12 billion in corporate tax welfare.
• Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.
• Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate's total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.[*]

From 1996 through 2000, just ten large profitable companies enjoyed a total of $50 billion in corporate tax breaks. Almost makes you feel sorry.....almost.... because I am sure they could belly up to the corporate welfare bar, and leave us all alone!

Hearsay anecdote?

I'm almost offended.

Or maybe you've never heard of corporate welfare. That's understandable.

Let me clarify my statement about taxes that wealthy individuals pay.

So, again. Corporations and the wealthy pay a far lower percentage of their income in federal tax than you or I do. Look into the percentage of federal revenue that comes from corporate tax and income tax from the richest 1% of the population. Compare it to the percentage of revenue from the middle-class' income.

Never mind, I'll do it for you.

This one is purely informational.

How's that for hearsay?

I'm reminded by your response of polititions who sidestep direct questions by answering something totally unrelated or spouting their rehearsed views until the original question/point is forgotten by joe-sixpack.

This was your response to point #1 in which I simply stated that jobs moving offshore will decrease the income taxes collected by states and federal govt:

Our economy is directly driven by the rich and big business. More money being made equals more money being injected into the economy. I seriously doubt that average joe sixpack who receives a big refund every year has contributed anywhere near as much as the rich and big business.

See? I make a point about loss of income taxes collected as more jobs move offshore and you spout that the rich drive the economy. If you want to know how economies work, read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" rather than reciting what you might hear repeated on Fox News.

This is how you responded to point #2 in which I stated that the tax cuts might not be spent in ways that help the economy or at all. I further give an example of how the tax cuts might be spent on building offshore facilities to move even more US jobs overseas:

Of course you neglect the fact that these tax cuts will be spent by the people receiving them. Again, more profit means more tax revenue.

See? Anyone can see clearly that I did mention the tax cuts MIGHT (not WILL) be spent and even gave an example. If we sold the tax breaks to Americans with "because the rich pay more now", then I wouldn't bother bringing it up. But it was sold to Americans with "because it will help improve the economy" so I'd like to see this tied together for people that receive millions in tax breaks. And as for the poor schmoes who only get $500 - $50,000 in annual tax breaks, let them spend it anyway they want.

Also, your "more profit means more tax revenue" sounds like common sense but is in fact misleading because there are clear examples of corporations making billions in profits (not revenues) while not paying ANY federal income taxes due to loopholes. For example, Microsoft paid no income taxes in 1999 despite making $12.3 billion in profits according to Citizens for Tax Justice. To find out why this doesn't jive with that year's SEC reports, look at this Motley Fool article for details and you'll find the numbers from ctj.org add up.

Your reponse to point #3 in which I state that we (USA) end up paying more for the war in Iraq because we pissed off our allies that would've paid for part that if we went in together was baffling:

The terrorists are extremist Muslims that are[...]

Whether the terrorists are Muslims or Martians and whether they believe in Allah or the tooth fairie is irrelevant to my statement about us having to pay for ALMOST ALL of the war instead of A REASONABLE PART of the war because our leader didn't think it was important enough to build consensus with UN before going in. IMHO, if we had Bush SR leading us instead of JR, then this would've been done right.

I didn't like Clinton either but at least we didn't lose thousands of American lives to terrorists within our country during his watch. And during his foreign policy leadership, I vaguely remember Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands at the White House--vaguely because that is not as memorable as the current bloodbath. I also recall a balanced budget but that isn't as memorable as the millions of jobs lost under Bush Jr. or the now unbalanced budget & deficit which can't be explained away solely by the cost of war on terrorism.

Things can be done a lot better than this and I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent that helps us out of this mess. --- We need someone smarter to lead

I'm reminded by your response of polititions who sidestep direct questions by answering something totally unrelated or spouting their rehearsed views until the original question/point is forgotten by joe-sixpack.

This was your response to point #1 in which I simply stated that jobs moving offshore will decrease the income taxes collected by states and federal govt:

Our economy is directly driven by the rich and big business. More money being made equals more money being injected into the economy. I seriously doubt that average joe sixpack who receives a big refund every year has contributed anywhere near as much as the rich and big business.

See? I make a point about loss of income taxes collected as more jobs move offshore and you spout that the rich drive the economy. If you want to know how economies work, read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" rather than reciting what you might hear repeated on Fox News.

This is how you responded to point #2 in which I stated that the tax cuts might not be spent in ways that help the economy or at all. I further give an example of how the tax cuts might be spent on building offshore facilities to move even more US jobs overseas:

Of course you neglect the fact that these tax cuts will be spent by the people receiving them. Again, more profit means more tax revenue.

See? Anyone can see clearly that I did mention the tax cuts MIGHT (not WILL) be spent and even gave an example. If we sold the tax breaks to Americans with "because the rich pay more now", then I wouldn't bother bringing it up. But it was sold to Americans with "because it will help improve the economy" so I'd like to see this tied together for people that receive millions in tax breaks. And as for the poor schmoes who only get $500 - $50,000 in annual tax breaks, let them spend it anyway they want.

Also, your "more profit means more tax revenue" sounds like common sense but is in fact misleading because there are clear examples of corporations making billions in profits (not revenues) while not paying ANY federal income taxes due to loopholes. For example, Microsoft paid no income taxes in 1999 despite making $12.3 billion in profits according to Citizens for Tax Justice. To find out why this doesn't jive with that year's SEC reports, look at this Motley Fool article for details and you'll find the numbers from ctj.org add up.

Your reponse to point #3 in which I state that we (USA) end up paying more for the war in Iraq because we pissed off our allies that would've paid for part that if we went in together was baffling:

The terrorists are extremist Muslims that are[...]

Whether the terrorists are Muslims or Martians and whether they believe in Allah or the tooth fairie is irrelevant to my statement about us having to pay for ALMOST ALL of the war instead of A REASONABLE PART of the war because our leader didn't think it was important enough to build consensus with UN before going in. IMHO, if we had Bush SR leading us instead of JR, then this would've been done right.

I didn't like Clinton either but at least we didn't lose thousands of American lives to terrorists within our country during his watch. And during his foreign policy leadership, I vaguely remember Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands at the White House--vaguely because that is not as memorable as the current bloodbath. I also recall a balanced budget but that isn't as memorable as the millions of jobs lost under Bush Jr. or the now unbalanced budget & deficit which can't be explained away solely by the cost of war on terrorism.

Things can be done a lot better than this and I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent that helps us out of this mess. --- We need someone smarter to lead

The recession officially begins in March 2001 and ends in November 2001. Feel like a recovery to you?

This tax cut was about 50% less than requested. But it was the third in 3 years (though the 90% figure is far too high; a rough check makes 70% look more likely). The way the phase-outs are designed, the real tax cut is well over a trillion dollars. Mostly for extremely rich folk. Why not cut some payroll taxes so everybody can get some relief?

And I forget, exactly how many US soldiers died because Clinton got a blow job and lied about it?

Jacksonian America performs an additional service: it makes a major, if unheralded, contribution to America's vaunted "soft power." It is not simply the Jeffersonian commitment to liberty and equality, the Wilsonian record of benevolence, anti-colonialism and support for democracy, or even the commercial success resulting from Hamiltonian policies that attracts people to the United States. Perhaps beyond all these it is the spectacle of a country that is good for average people to live in: where ordinary people can and do express themselves culturally, economically and spiritually without any inhibition. The consumer lifestyle of the United States--and the consequences of federal policy to enrich the middle class and make it a class of homeowners and automobile drivers--wins the country many admirers abroad. For the first time in human history, millions of ordinary people have enough money in their pockets and time on their hands to support a popular culture that has more resources than the high culture of the aristocracy and elite. This culture is what hundreds of millions of foreigners love most about the United States, and its dissemination makes scores of millions of foreigners feel somehow connected to or even part of the United States. The cultural, social and religious vibrancy and unorthodoxy of Jacksonian America--not excluding such pastimes as professional wrestling--are among the country's most important foreign policy assets.

-- http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

Please. If you haven't noticed, the "federal policy" to enrich the middle class is on hold. Huge federal deficits are pushing up interest rates, and the finance system has, since the stock market bubble burst, come to depend on interest rates being very low. A few points on the prime rate, and all hell breaks loose. The rich are most certainly getting richer, and the poor are becomming homeless. The middle class is shrinking, and just as sure as there were riots in L.A. twelve years ago, there will be riots in the U.S. again unless the rich stop soaking the poor.

If you want to see a government tax structure committed to growing their middle class, have a look at Sweden. They have a two-bracket, very steeply progressive system under which most people pay no taxes, but, everyone making more than 10% over the mean salary pays about 57% of that portion. That means more than being able to deduct mortgage interest ever will.

And don't get me started about free time.

I'll see those (raw, unsummarized, and poorly formatted) rushlimbaugh.com figures, and raise you this easy-to-read analysis of the recent cuts.

The top one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent - well over a third of the total - is up from 25.1 percent ten years earlier in tax year 1990.

That analysis completely ignores corporate income taxes.

I would guess ... that US taxes are ... close to Sweden.

You would guess wrong by a margin of about 100%.

I'm guessing you're a wet behind the ears 22 year old housewife in a picket fence house in a "gated community"

Wrong again, 35/M/urban Mountain View, CA.

What is Sweden's secret? Progressive taxation. Average production workers in Sweden pay no income tax to their central government because the bottom bracket starts about a tenth above the average production worker's salary. The Swedish tax rate is typically about 57% of income earned above that base. Sweden only has two central government tax brackets: 0% and 25%, so their "federal" taxes are actually closer to the "flat tax" than ours are in the U.S. The additional 32% or so varies by local jurisdiction, as does the income bracket at which it takes effect.

The problem in the U.S. is that top-bracket income earners (including corporations, medium-sized businesses, and most of the top 1% rich, excluding some of the prominent top rich in the media spotlight) pay a huge amount of money in order to help elect government officials who will keep the top tax brackets low. This effectivly "saves" them an even larger amount of money, except for the externalities like crime rate, debt, and property values. We used to have regulations providing equal air time for federal candidates, but Reagan's FCC did away with those, so most candidates today, even most nationally prominent Democrats, sure know which side of their bread is buttered on. There are some notable exceptions, however.

it appears that Sweden is dismantling its welfare state

I am under the different impression that all their 6% of the population that were in retraining programs three years ago got jobs at Volvo, Ikea, Ericson, and/or one of Sweden's many vibrantly thriving small businesses.

Having lived in the UK and the United States, I've seen nothing proving that "progressive" (aka. liberal) policies do anything but keep the poor poor (tax any extra money they make, remove the incentive to work harder or retrain) and fuel the fires of class warfare.

Do you know the meaning of progressive taxation? It is like the "flat tax," only with brackets. Someday accountants will have access to continious function technology.

The fact is, Sweden's middle class has been growing, while the U.S. middle class has been shrinking. A shrinking middle class puts a society on a collision course with riots and increases the crime rate.

Under the U.S. form of government, we are getting decade-record levels of unemployment and crime, but at least the rich are a little richer, if you don't coun't externalities like the crime rate and overall property values.

Just don't count on all those nearly three million newly-unemployed people to vote on election day. I wouldn't put it past Bush to do something "exciting" right before election day. After all, you have a guy who claimed that he didn't tell anyone about his drunk driving conviction because he was trying to protect his daughters, but he doesn't ask the Secret Service to lift a finger to keep them from being caught drinking underage. He simply can not be trusted. How many times did he leave the "have you ever been convicted" question blank on Texas election forms? However, there is still hope.

Progressive taxes are a drag on small business and productivity.

Wrong. The same amount of tax on a progressive scale helps small businesses compared to the same amount of tax on a more regressive scale. Moreover, progressive taxation helps improve productivity, consumer confidence, and consumer spending by puting more money in the pockets of working people. It seems that dlm3, like many U.S. citizens, has no idea what the word "progressive" means. Hint: it does not mean "increasing" unless you have one of the the largest incomes.

In the US, we can't keep 'em out - they'll even cross miles of desert, risking their lives to get here. We must have something people want, don't you think?

Yes, we have illegal farm labor, a situation under which about five million undocumented Californian men, women, and children, are smuggled in to work without health insurance with the tacit complicity of their agribusiness employers, along with many millions more like them nationwide.

Income taxes are no better. They confiscate earnings without being as noticeable by the taxpayer....

Surely you jest. Name one taxpayer who doesn't know how much income tax they paid.

the only answer is to reduce taxes and cut spending

Are you kidding? Do you want the U.S. to be more like Mexico?

Republicans and Democrats are vying to figure out which tax they ought to raise to solve their problem.

Answer: The progressive taxes. In other words, don't do what California did in the 1990s.

Sweden has twice the taxes of the U.S. as a fraction of GDP, but they are far better when it comes to sustaining human life. Swedish companies like Ericson, Ikea, and Volvo are above average in their peer groups, so don't believe anyone who tells you that progressive taxes are bad for business.

When Davis came into office we had the biggest surplus in all of Californian history. At the end of his first term we now have the biggest deficit in our history. Were did all that money go?

Perhaps you remember back in the summer of 2000, when Bush began to approach Gore in national polls, how the stock markets reacted? Working families (80+% of the population) quickly lost around a trillion dollars in retirement and college tuition savings, as insurance companies and institutions lost investment portfolio wealth. Who do you think those losses were passed on to?

9/11 was not even barely the cause. The crash was in the Summer of 2000, when Bush spent enough on ads to poll even with Gore.

Now, three years later, we have the biggest deficit in history, and that's before factoring in the added cost of all the military pensions and healthcare that weren't facing us before the hawks decided that stopping with Afganistan wasn't enough. Every other wartime we've had a tax increase, but Bush seems content to pass the buck to the kids. Of course, if we did get a tax increase it would probably be regressive. But we're not getting a tax increase, we're getting bigger deficits, with the burden squarely on the backs of the working families. Come a year from November, I hope they notice.

timeshifting Rush Limbaugh

Why do you listen to guys that don't keep themselves fit?

Rush has been a paid political propagandist for the oligarch wing of the Republican party. His advocacy of military buildup has caused the largest budget deficit ever, placing his economics firmly against motherhood. His anti-progressive economics have hurt the working poor, and helped few other than the top 1%.

Rush Limbaugh has failed as a human being.

It's not like we don't pay a lot for taxes already!

Yes, it is.

Since businesses get many tax benefits that individuals don't get

That's if they pay any taxes at all. Some even get refunds.

Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.

General Electric, America's most profitable corporation, reported $50.8 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid only 11.5 percent of that in federal income taxes. That low tax rate reflected almost $12 billion in corporate tax welfare for GE.

Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years. It reported $18.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past two years, but paid a tax rate of only 5.7 percent.

Worldcom paid no taxes at all in two of the last three years, despite reported U.S. profits of $15.2 billion. Worldcom's total tax rate over the three years was only 1.6%. Corporate tax welfare slashed Worldcom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past five years.

IBM reported $5.7 billion in U.S. profits in 2000, but paid only 3.4 percent of that in federal income taxes. In 1997, IBM reported $3.1 billion in U.S. profits, and instead of paying taxes, got an outright tax rebate. Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.

General Motors paid no taxes at all in three of the last five years, despite $12.5 billion in reported U.S. profits. GM's tax rate for the past three years was negative 1.3 percent. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $3.6 billion over the past five years.

Enron paid no income taxes at all in four of the past five years, despite $1.8 billion in reported U.S. profits. Enron's total taxes over the five years were a negative $381 million. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $1.0 billion.

El Paso Energy reported $1.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid less than nothing in federal income taxes, getting tax rebates of $254 million. El Paso's tax rate over the five years was negative 15.5 percent. Its corporate welfare totaled $827 million.

Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate's total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.

Navistar, on $1.4 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, paid only $28 million in federal income taxes, a tax rate of only 2 percent. Navistar's corporate tax welfare totaled $451 million.

Source: Corporate annual reports and forms 10-K.
Citizens for Tax Justice

A... However, by tax law and by statistical averages, a single person making $50,000 a year is in the top 5-10% range of American incomes.

I wonder where you get that data. Doing the math on the tables in this IRS PDF (page 17) strongly suggests that the top 5% earn well over $100,000 a year. The AGI minus deficit of $75,000 and up constituted 15%. Tax returns with an AGI of $50,000 up made it into the top 28.23%.

Did you just walk through a cow pasture?

B... They'll still be paying more (percentage-wise, and dollar-wise) than the poor. Again, is tax relief still unfair?

There are some interesting numbers, on page 29 of the PDF. Again, the math indicates that those earning between $50,000 and $500,000 pay the highest percentage of taxes. While no return category earning over $500,000 paid more than 7.6% on average. I wonder how they managed that? Don't forget all the company perks: company housing, cars, food, business trips (read vacations), etc. that don't get reported as income.

C. Let's examine what the poor are doing for the economy vs. the wealthy.

Interesting logic... in a completely bizarre way. Tax breaks for the rich = more buying stuff = more jobs = more money for the poor. Bogus! Try the opposite: tax breaks for the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money (see social science studies and basic costs of living challenges) = more buying = more jobs = more money for the poor. Those who already have all their needs of life met save a greater percentage of their income (take it out of circulation), they don't spend (circulate) it. How many people earning less than $30,000/yr do you know who have any decent life savings?

D. Which people are using more of the government services generated by the tax revenue -- the rich, or the poor? Now, who pays more for those services, the rich or the poor? Who deserves a tax cut now?

Depends on your definition of government services. If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc.. This is an interesting document. Besides, those filthy poor people can pay for their own damn food and medicine... I'm trying to save up for my third Rolls Royce!

your example is indicitative of the typical Slashdotter mentality.

And yours indicitive of the typical sucker who has bought the right-wing numbers/arguments. How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme.

I smell manure... anyone else?

"Subsidies are not the only government benefit. As you point out, tax breaks are not subsidies. But they DO give these companies a financial boost. As do fees imposed on your telephone bill by the government, which aren't taxes because the money goes straight to the phone companies."

Actually Tax breaks can be subsidies. The law isn't always straight line on the point, but it can be.

WTO Sides With European Union In Tax Break Dispute

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND:A CASE STUDY IN CORPORATE WELFARE

Tax breaks for corporations are welfare for the wealthy

The Hidden Entitlements

There's more were that came from, and like all things legal/political quite a bit of reading is required to discern things. Something the original poster hasn't demonstrated yet.

We would probably be in much worse shape as a country, if we didn't have such a well trained, well supplied military.

• $189 million from higher education
• $541 million from Training and Employment Services
• $1.026 billion from Law Enforcement Assistance, Community Policing and other justice programs.
• $223 million from Small and Minority Business Assistance, a 31% reduction
• $227 million from disaster relief
• $109 million from Small Business Administration Disaster loans, a 59% reduction
• $338 million from Energy Supply programs
• $354.1 million from clean up programs at former defense sites
• $756 million from Water Resources programs, including flood prevention efforts
• $498 million from Pollution control and abatement programs
• $1.23 billion from Conservation and Land Management programs
• $144 million from Animal and Plant inspection programs

If you think that folks like Hitler, Stalin, Hussien, etc. wouldn't already be over here, then you are crazy.

And if you think the likely source of that threat today is not from within, then you are crazy, or, more likely, just following orders.

I am a strong believer in a well prepared military and a well armed nation.

Clearly, you have greater belief in military and arms than in your God's commandment against killing. Remember your drill sergeant telling you to obey without question? You have made him very proud. I hope he is there to congratulate you when you receive your "heavenly reward" for your actions.

These two things are what will keep the U.S. free and at peace most of the time.

Then you are a fool. How many troops are worth one more student in your children's classes? How many bombs are worth one more undiagnosed tuberculosis patient in your town? How many bullets are worth one fewer book in your public library? How many rifles are worth one fewer ambulance in your neighborhood?

The Constitution you have sworn to uphold has been eroded to the point of unrecognizability. Are you such a coward that you refuse to see that "folks like Hitler, Stalin, Hussien, etc." are in your own backyard?

Sure, wealthy folks pay a substantial burden of the personal income tax, as they should. (Although the tax isn't as progressive as it should be, thanks largely to Republican-driven tax-cutting over the past few decades.)

But check out this little tidbit from Citizens for Tax Justice:

* In 1965, U.S. corporate income taxes were 4.1% of our GDP, compared to 2.4% of GDP in the other OECD countries.

* But by 2000 U.S. corporate income taxes had dropped to 2.5% of GDP, while corporate income taxes in the other OECD countries had risen to 3.4% of GDP.

* In 2002, U.S. corporate taxes plummeted to only 1.5% of our GDP.

The completely odd thing is that corporations are undisputably property, which means that if they have the full rights given to a "person" under the Constitution, then corporations are an illegal form of slavery.

As someone who has been "employed" by corporations, I could not agree any more than I do. What they offer is very often nowhere near what they take, except for maybe the very top executives.

If corporations were taxed at Eisenhauer levels, perhaps we might get somehwere in terms of our budget deficit. But would it kill the economy? No. It would help because running huge deficits is worse.

Oh, and did I mention that we need a progressive tax structure? It's all about the consumer confidence. You ain't got a thing if no one wants that thing.

Oh my god, CmdrTaco. This is total flamebait. Free software developers not providing any tax revenue?

Neither does Microsoft.
Really, they don't pay a dime!

--CmdrTaco, I'm going to block the ads but I will mail you a $5 bill each year. Is that okay?

I checked and found out that I for my income bracket, I actually should get more from Gore. Unless you earned more than 130,000 and have no kid or going to have inheritance more than several millions, you probably will get similar tax-break from both of them. Check out Citizens for Tax Justice. It's a liberal leaning group. So, if you're in the higher income brackets, they'll only exagerrate your tax-break from Bush plan :).

Of course, if you're ideologically pro-tax break, Bush is still your man. But to me, it's reckless to spend over the estimated-surplus, which nobody knows whether it'll actually be there, for a large tax-break, expanded military, etc. Gore spends quite a portions, something like 1.9 out of 2.2 trillions but at least his book so far is balance. There is a large part of Bush's budget expenditures which hasn't been accounted for yet...