I'm sick of spamming other threads with one topic - BUSH

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Well, why spam other threads like we did "love for ones country" when we can duke it out here. Anyone who supports Bush can come here to argue this with me. Have fun lights =/. Well first topic shall be.... Well, his "tax refund" was complete bullshit. As I said in the other thread.

According to one study, 64 percent of the benefits from moving up the tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of the population, while only 7.7 percent goes to the bottom 80 percent. 70 percent of the benefits from accelerating the planned 2006 tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and only 6.4 percent to the lowest four-fifths. Only the increase in the child tax credit provides the bulk of its benefits to middle-income families.

People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47—less than $5 a year.

A ton of people got nothing at all. Lights didn't come up with a answer to it last time but maybe he will when I start a thread with it.

 

[Lights]

I have no idea why you are personally targeting me. I am not the presidents personal spokesperson. I say what I think. If you dont think Bush is a good person and that he is out to destroy America, fine. That isnt how I see it. Duke it out? Please, our talks really arent that important. Nothing you or I say or prove/disprove will mean anything to anyone beyond our own personal satisfaction. You honestly need to calm down.


As to the tax cut/break. It isnt perfect. God knows nothing ever is. However, the top percent(wealthiest) people pay tremendously more amounts of taxes, they have much larger incomes to account for than the lower percents. So of course, when you break it down into percents, it will look greatly out of balance. That isnt really the case. If you can come up with another figure that shows how much per dollar break the wealthy is getting compared to the more poor, then we can really debate this.


Think about it this way. Person A(wealthy) pays $100 taxes and gets a 10% break, and then person B(lower income) comes, only has to pay $10 and gets a 10% break. So, A will get $10 back and B gets $1 back. The way you are showing me, it would seem A is getting 90% of the break, which is true, but he also payed 10x more. In reality, it isnt so bad afterall. Everyone is getting the same percent back. Hell, even if the "Upper Class" does get a little bit better of a break, they are paying more taxes; they deserve it. I have no problem accepting that.


This is my understanding of how the tax break works. I could be wrong, and if proven so, I can accept it.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I must say that was a excellent answer under the conditions

I have no idea why you are personally targeting me.

If there was another person who I spammed threads up with I would target them aswell.

Duke it out? Please, our talks really arent that important. Nothing you or I say or prove/disprove will mean anything to anyone beyond our own personal satisfaction.

Well, the reason I argue anything is mainly for my personal satisfaction isn't it the same for you?

You honestly need to calm down

Do you see me really annoyied or frustrated, I don't. Let's just have a intellegent debate or discussion it has to be no more than that.

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effect of eliminating dividend taxation is that the average benefit for those making less than $10,000 would be $6, and average benefit for those making more than $1 million would be $45,098.

If you times the 6 dollars by 100 it doesn't amount to nearly as much as people making 1 million. So according to this they are not getting nearly the percentage they deserve The tax cuts don't seem to be boosting the economy as they were supposed to. If you give the upper end of income-earners a tax break it doesn't go straight back into the economy. They are much more likely to save their money in places that aren't immediately reinvested in the U.S. economy-think Swiss bank accounts, safes in their mansions, or even low risk savings accounts. If you were to give a tax break to a low-income family, they use their added income as consumers, buying essentials like clothes or food, or even leisure items, pumping the money right back into the economy. Why give the minority the majority of the tax break, and they don't actually pay most of the taxes. You must be quite rich to get the money you did huh?

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
I must say that was a excellent answer under the conditions If there was another person who I spammed threads up with I would target them aswell. Well, the reason I argue anything is mainly for my personal satisfaction isn't it the same for you? Do you see me really annoyied or frustrated, I don't. Let's just have a intellegent debate or discussion it has to be no more than that.

Fine with me.

If you times the 6 dollars by 100 it doesn't amount to nearly as much as people making 1 million. So according to this they are not getting nearly the percentage they deserve

Hmm.. I can honestly say I dont know how to reply to that. I dont pretend to know all the answers on this topic, and you cannot expect me to be able to counter every article you scrummage up on the web. :\ I dont even know what article that is from, if it is reliable, or even if reading it alone takes it out of context..

All I can say is that there can and will be extenuating circumstances. Not every situation will receive the same returns. As you may or may not know, there is much more to the return than just yearly income; that is only the beginning of the forms. Perhaps there is a stagger system, with the more income you receive, the more the returns build up. I dont know. I suppose I should check on that. =\

The tax cuts don't seem to be boosting the economy as they were supposed to.

Eh, well our economy is doing extremely well right now, so I dont as much agree with you on that point. I dont know what Bush was aiming for, but our economy is rising and doing better than it has in decades.

If you give the upper end of income-earners a tax break it doesn't go straight back into the economy. They are much more likely to save their money in places that aren't immediately reinvested in the U.S. economy-think Swiss bank accounts, safes in their mansions, or even low risk savings accounts. If you were to give a tax break to a low-income family, they use their added income as consumers, buying essentials like clothes or food, or even leisure items, pumping the money right back into the economy.

You cannot really stereotype like that. Sure, some of the upper class may save or put into investing, but you cant say they all do that. One $500,000 RV pays the government much more than 10 basic televisions.. Rich people spend just as often as the poorer, and in greater amounts. Do you think rich people dont buy food or clothes, too? Well they do, and more of it.

Why give the minority the majority of the tax break, and they don't actually pay most of the taxes.

Once again, they do. They pay the large majority. Im fairly certain Bill Gates pays more income taxes than 1000 "regular" families. Their expensive lifestyles are.. tax heavy, to put it lightly.

You must be quite rich to get the money you did huh?

Funny you say that. No, Im far from rich. My parents' combined income is $50,000 or so, and that is to support 6 people. I am in the lower-middle class. But, we didnt need thousands of dollars back, the money we got back ($800 or so) helped out immensely. For our spending habits and lifestyle, we got enough to help boost our economic activity, which was exactly what the tax break was designed for.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Eh, well our economy is doing extremely well right now, so I dont as much agree with you on that point. I dont know what Bush was aiming for, but our economy is rising and doing better than it has in decades.

It may be rising faster but that is only because it has been in a slump.

·?Consumer spending decreased 0.7 percent in June - the steepest drop since September 2001

And I have already talked about the massive deficit and national debt, and the last time I checked the dollar was quite weak.

Perhaps there is a stagger system, with the more income you receive, the more the returns build up. I dont know. I suppose I should check on that. =\

But the rich people are not paying the majority of the taxes but the majority of the money is going to that small percent. Does that make sense?

Sure, some of the upper class may save or put into investing, but you cant say they all do that.

I probally can't, but I would bet a lot on it that most of them do. Most of them should have a **** load saved up, and there income would likely cover their expensives, they bang what extra they get into a bank and just spend as normal, it is not needed. I wouldn't stake the economy on the chance the rich people might spend there money I would rather go with a more even and more derserved spread of the money.

 

[Sogeking]

whoa, a lot of this is on guesses. MAYBE most of the rich dont pay that much. MAYBE this or MAYBE that....but did anyone concider about how much big corporations like microsoft have to pay in taxes to the government every year? they do right? well wouldnt you suppose it would be a lot?

Hey, maybe the rich dont pay nearly as much on taxes because they donate! dont donations count as tax writeoffs or something like that?

 

[Undead Cheese]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
It may be rising faster but that is only because it has been in a slump.

Doesn't change the fact that it's improving.

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
But the rich people are not paying the majority of the taxes but the majority of the money is going to that small percent. Does that make sense?

This just isn't true. Here's a breakdown of who contributes how much to the government via federal income taxes.

The top 1% pays 32% of all income taxes
The top 5% pays 51.4% of all income taxes
The top 10% pays 63.5% of all income taxes
The top 20% pays 78% of all income taxes

The top 5% of tax payers alone pays the majority of income tax (51.4%)

 

[Sogeking]

undead cheese, wouldnt making a LOT of donations bring down the ammouint of income tax the rich would have to pay?

 

[Undead Cheese]

What's your point?

 

[Sogeking]

that it might appear as though the rich are paying less but really they are just donating a lot

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

This just isn't true. Here's a breakdown of who contributes how much to the government via federal income taxes.

Ok, great I got something wrong, but still does that alone topple my argument? It doesn't change the fact that it is unfair but just by a lesser degree than I thought. You never take stances, you just wait until someone makes a mistake and then points it out. Stepping into something without any chance of being wrong makes your posts short and boring but it works for you so w/e.

64.4 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers;

That is still more than they deserve, a extra 13%, it is a lot when spread over the minority. Also things are a lot less one sided on other aspects of tax. And as I said the rich people are already spending as much as they want, they will just bang the money in a savings account. It is very ineffective. A lot/most of this I have gathered.

Job creation remains stagnant with just 32,000 new jobs in July, far short of economists’ predictions of 200,000 to 300,000 and the White House promise of 306,000 jobs.
Unemployment remains essentially unchanged at 5.5 percent, compared with 5.6 percent for the past three months. During his term unemployment has hit a massive 6.1% compared with 4% in 2000. Last year, the report projected creation of 1.7 million jobs in 2003. But the economy actually lost 53,000 jobs, bringing the number of jobs lost since Bush took office to 2.2 million by year's end.
Some 10.9 percent of African Americans and 6.8 percent of Latinos are out of work, an increase from June.
The economy has lost 1.8 million private-sector jobs since Bush took office.
The average length of unemployment stands at 18.6 weeks. There were 1.7 million long-term unemployed workers in July 2004, up from 660,000 long-term unemployed workers in January 2001.
Long-tenured workers are losing their jobs at the highest rate on record.
Those with jobs are watching their paychecks fall behind the inflation rate.
"You've had a jobs-creation situation which, no matter what happens over the balance of this year, will be the worst job-creation record for any four-year presidential term since 1932, that is to say, since Herbert Hoover,"
Again I will add that the national debt was in the 5s(wasn't it 5.6?) in 2000 but now it has escalated to 7.3 trillion. And again I will say he breaks records with the deflicit.

If Clinton kepy his dick in his pants you lou would be bragging about how prosperous your economy is right now.

 

[c9h13no3]

Blah blah blah.

Tee-Hee-Hee.

I have the energy to laugh at your arguments but not enough to really argue back, sorry.

Just keep this in mind. The wealthy have the most money taken away in taxes, so is it any suprise that their refunds are bigger than someone who pays very little in taxes?

I wouldn't talk that much about unemployment either. The unemployment rate for individuals is at about 5.6% right now, which is the natural rate for unemployment. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

And I'm really suprised there aren't more jobs being lost. People can't go on performing menial labor in mills and expect to keep that job for the rest of their lives. You have to adapt to the times. Learn some new skills, and then get back in the labor force.

Liberals......

PS - I also love how Bill Clinton trys to take responsibility for the technology boom we had in this country..... :roll:

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I hate vb3!!!! I just lost all my writing!!

Just keep this in mind. The wealthy have the most money taken away in taxes, so is it any suprise that their refunds are bigger than someone who pays very little in taxes?

I have already showed that the percentage they pay in (figures from undead cheese) are still much higher than the % they pay in

I wouldn't talk that much about unemployment either. The unemployment rate for individuals is at about 5.6% right now, which is the natural rate for unemployment. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

Please quote the text that says that, in 2000 it was as low as 4%...

And I'm really suprised there aren't more jobs being lost. People can't go on performing menial labor in mills and expect to keep that job for the rest of their lives. You have to adapt to the times. Learn some new skills, and then get back in the labor force.

That has been happening all the time, you can't just say ttat this has only happened during Bush's term. He will have the worst unemployment rate since hoover no matter what happens this year.

I also love how Bill Clinton trys to take responsibility for the technology boom we had in this country.....

I'd rather have someone with a private life that Bush.. I don't care about what he takes responsibility for, he is a much better president than Bush.

Liberals......

?????

 

[c9h13no3]

I have already showed that the percentage they pay in (figures from undead cheese) are still much higher than the % they pay in

The % they pay in are still much higher than the % they pay in? Um..... what? You need to work on that whole "making sense" thing.

Please quote the text that says that, in 2000 it was as low as 4%...

Which is too low. Statistics have shown that when unemployment gets that low, the inflation occurs and they economy usually busts. Wonder why we had a big ole (actually small in comparison) recession? That's part of the reason.

He will have the worst unemployment rate since hoover no matter what happens this year.

This is just wrong. You're a simpleton who hasn't done your research. Go Here and read.

Notice, 1982: 9.7

That's just 1 example where it's higher. I can find numerous. You can bite my ass.

I'd rather have someone with a private life that Bush.. I don't care about what he takes responsibility for, he is a much better president than Bush. ?????

You didn't even read that right. The president didn't have anything to do with the boom in internet buisnesses between 1992-2000. I don't give a damn about what Clinton does with his penis.

And I'm not going to reply anymore. You're wasting my time with your retarded pile of words.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

The % they pay in are still much higher than the % they pay in? Um..... what? You need to work on that whole "making sense" thing.

I got it right the first time, I guess what I was trying to say and what did say wern't close enough for you. I meant that they are getting a bigger % out of the tax refund than the % of tax comes from the rich people, just read my other posts...

Which is too low.

Please show me these 'statistics' I don't see anything wrong with putting people to work. "President Bush's job creation is the "worst since Herbert Hoover,"" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44691-2004Mar9&notFound=true My apologies a slight misreading, this means that whoever had the 9.7% still created more jobs than Bush, so you can't blame it on stuff like technological advances because someone must of suffered something really bad and STILL created more jobs than Bush, you just helped my argument thanks.

don't care about what he takes responsibility for,

You remember me saying that.

You didn't even read that right.

.... I was just having a go at him being kicked out of the whitehouse because of his private affairs ok?

And I'm not going to reply anymore. You're wasting my time with your retarded pile of words.

.... I make one misreading and my whole argument is a "retarded pile of words" I hope your time is better spent spamming the asylum, asshole.

 

[c9h13no3]

asshole

When idiots think I'm an asshole, that makes me smile.

That lets me know that what I've done has seriously emotionally affected them. Good to know my words get to your heart.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

No counter arguments? A flame deserves another, so I do not know what you are talking about. Idiot? looks like by your standings I have emotionally affected you.

 

[c9h13no3]

Oh and one more quick thing.

Please show me these 'statistics'

Well, you know that website I keep linking to? www.bls.gov? If you want statistics on the work force, go there. I don't have time to hold your hand here and show you every single thing I've looked up at some point in the past. Do your own damn research.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I wouldn't call that holding someone's hand I would call that making things quicker.