Democrats & Liberals Archives

Someone Crack a Window; More Stink-a-roo Legislation

Who do the Republican’s really work for? You & I, or themselves & big money? Last week they removed all doubt with their “we will throw the little guy a bone, as long as we can give Paris Hilton a tax cut” bill [H.R.5970]. Wow…WOW, How low can the “moral majority” go?

I'm all for tax cuts and smaller government, but Republicans have reduced themselves to hostage takers. Holding the working class hostage is unacceptable and Democrats will do well not give into such deplorable tactics.

"There must be around 40 extenders here - that do good work - and so they say if you want the extenders you gotta buy this stink-a-roo."

...[snip]...

"If you care about poor folks, act like it! Give them a day by themselves. Don't mix their problems up with the richest of the rich of this country. Hypocrisy!? I've now seen it all." ~Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY [Watch the video here]

Its political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, Members of Congress raised their own pay - no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect." ~Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors." ~Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.
"The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again, blackmailing working families will not change that outcome." ~Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"They want on the one hand to appear to be doing something and on the other make sure that it doesn't happen." ~Steny Hoyer, D-MD.

If all this is not bad enough, the bill ties in a "cost of living," or inflation adjustment to the estate tax after 2015. There is no such "cost of living" adjustment for the provision raising the minimum wage, which is only addressed through 2009!

Republicans are worried about the "cost of living" for multi-millionaires?! What the hell is that? If the working class' "cost of living" increases, guess what? Republicans don't give a shit. How Republicans manage to win and retain control of any branch of government is just mind-boggling.

Posted by JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 5:00 PM
Comments
Comment #172367

JayJay:

Didn’t the house pass this bill? Any idea how to find out how the Democrats voted? I sure would like to see the vote breakdown.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 31, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #172370

The estate tax break has been tried and it failed. So, when the REPs leaders are forced to do something they don’t like - raising the minimum wage - they feel they have to offer something up for themselves to make the bitter pill easier to swallow.

CRAP CRAP CRAP

They are too chickenshit to vote against raising the minimum wage… they can not get the get the estate tax break through on it’s own… so, they just toss them together so they can muddy the water.

VOTE THEM OUT!

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #172372

womanmarine,

Yes the bill passed the House. 196 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted for it. 158 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against it. 14 Republicans and 8 Democrats did not vote. You can find the Roll Call here.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #172373

I found the breakdown:

Here

Posted by: womanmarine at July 31, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #172375

OK - both my local representatives voted against it… so I’m OK. It kills me to know that they would vote for a raise in the minimum wage - but how can any responsible person vote to completely bust our deficit at a time like this?

I think we know where each party’s interest is. Working Class Families or Wealthy…hmmm, that’s a hard one to decide on.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #172377

Tony:

You have two local representatives?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 31, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #172378

well… no, not actually… but I have a very good friend (Brad Miller) who is not in my district and then David Price who is in my district.

(You may of heard of Brad Miller via his opponent this year… holly crap - yes, it’s a black male racist neocon… and I’m completely serious… check out these ads, if you’ve not eaten yet: http://vernonrobinson.com/radio.shtml)

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #172379

You all are funny.
You get the minimum wage you have cried for but your still upset because you won’t be able to dictate what rich people do with their own money.

You should be happy that you got your way and forced another minimum wage increase onto the consumers, they are, afterall, the ones who will be paying for it.
And you should also be happy that some of your fellow Americans may be allowed to have some freedom of choice given back to them.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #172382

kctim -

Wow, so if you work for raising the minimum wage - then you are forcing your will on the “Voters’, but if you want to give wealthy people a tax break, then you are simply working to the will of the people, because…??? We’re all wealthy on the inside?

Freedom of choice is defined as tax-free wealth distribution for the wealthy???? What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?

We’re upset because Republicans can not vote for a single item without tossing something in for their base (you remember them: the haves and the have-mores?) Do you remember the discussion going on before they tossed in the Estate Tax break? The Republicans were bickering among themselves because some wanted the minimum wage raises, others didn’t but all of them knew they HAD to vote in favor of it or risk loosing voters. So, they were going to buckle to the pressure - then they found a way to save face: give a hugely expensive kickback to the rich.

Now, that’s politics at it’s best. ( or at least it’s most obvious.)

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #172383

There was an early school of thought on taxes that I tend to agree with, and it is the total opposite of what Republicans advocate. Early in American history, it was argued that men should realize the full fruits of their labors. Incomes and sale of tangible goods that a person had labored to create should be free from tax. I think that is part of the reason the income tax was originally forbidden by the Constitution. There was also the thought that land was not the fruit of a person’s labor, it was pre-existent, therefore it was ok to tax or charge a “user” fee on real land, that could be used for public projects in the community.

I tend to agree with all that. I also think that would include unearned income, as it is not the fruits of the beneficiary’s labor. Inheritance taxes, interest income, income from dividends and land use taxes are really the only legitimate taxes under such thought.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #172385

Tony
“Freedom of choice is defined as tax-free wealth distribution for the wealthy?”

Having the choice of deciding where the money you worked for goes, IS freedom of choice.
Passing it down to your children or using it to do what you feel is best, IS freedom of choice.
Worrying about how the Hilton’s use their money is silly and telling them how the money they earned should be spent is NOT freedom of choice.
Not a hard concept to grasp, unless we allow envy to rule over common sense and fairness.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #172390
And you should also be happy that some of your fellow Americans may be allowed to have some freedom of choice given back to them.

kctim,

At the expense of freedom of choice to the majority of Americans? I see lots of tax cuts for the rich, but I don’t see any cuts in spending. Just who do you think is going to pay for the horrendous financial mess the Republicans have gotten us into? Republicans may be cutting taxes for the wealthy today, but they are raising taxes on the working class of tomorrow. Voodoo economics at work.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #172391

Is the inheritance tax classified as a direct or indirect tax?

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #172393

JJ
Thats where we differ, I don’t view it as tax cuts for the rich.
As long as one man is treated differently and punished more for earning money than another, our tax system will be unfair.
You don’t see cuts in spending because the Reps are spineless. There are plenty of cuts they should be doing but due to our nation of dependency, they would loose votes.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #172396
Thats where we differ, I don’t view it as tax cuts for the rich. As long as one man is treated differently and punished more for earning money than another, our tax system will be unfair. You don’t see cuts in spending because the Reps are spineless. There are plenty of cuts they should be doing but due to our nation of dependency, they would loose votes.

kctim,

I am no expert on our tax system, but I think that our base tax rate should be the same as we move through different tax brackets. If I earned $100,000 then Donald Trumps first $100,000 in earnings should be taxed the same as my 100,000. Likewise if someone doesn’t pay taxes because they have earning below a certain amount then nobody should have to pay taxes on that part of their income. I see nothing wrong with higher taxes as you progress through tax brackets, as long as you pay the same tax as everyone else in the lower tax brackets. If the average person can live on x amount of dollars then anything over that is a bonus. And don’t give me that crap that the wealthy worked so hard for their money they should be able to choose what to do with it. I would venture to guess that people who make minumim wage work a lot harder that most millionaires.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #172397

kctim

Glad to see you support freedom of choice. I look forward to reading your arguements for freedom of choice for women and their freedom to control what they do with their own bodies and for homosexuals and their freedom to marry a person of the same sex and for people to use whatever language they would like.

Posted by: mark at July 31, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #172398

kctim,

Besides the average millionaire already has far more choice than the average American. If you are truly for the freedom to choose, then you should advocate tax cuts to the average American.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #172399

“Not a hard concept to grasp, unless we allow envy to rule over common sense and fairness.”

ahhh… the “you’re just jealous” argument. Brilliant.

You are failing to grasp the single concept involved with this: the person who earned all this wealth is not being taxed. Whoever receives this wealth must pay tax on it - same as winning the lottery or working for a paycheck. You get income, you pay tax on it.

If you earn money and pay tax on it - you have the FREEDOM to do whatever you like with it. You can even give it away - friends, family, complete strangers, and it doesn’t cost you a dime in taxes.

If you get money - even if you are rich - you must pay taxes. Why do you hold the wealthy to a different standard?

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #172400

Why should we hold the lucky, those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, to a different standard of tax free income? Who in the hell do they think they are that they should be able to receive income for which they did not lift one finger or sweat one drop and not pay taxes on it like a hard working American has to.

Posted by: mark at July 31, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #172404

Let’s do away with all income taxes and other such “unfair” systems and just settle on a national sales tax. Those who consume the most will pay the most. Those who save to pass on to their heirs can do so with no penalty. No class envy will be involved.
What’s the sense in accumulating lots of money if you don’t either spend it or pass it on to those you love? No one has figured out a way to take it with them when they die.

Posted by: Jim at July 31, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #172403

Let’s do away with all income taxes and other such “unfair” systems and just settle on a national sales tax. Those who consume the most will pay the most. Those who save to pass on to their heirs can do so with no penalty. No class envy will be involved.
What’s the sense in accumulating lots of money if you don’t either spend it or pass it on to those you love? No one has figured out a way to take it with them when they die.

Posted by: Jim at July 31, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #172417

Consumption taxes are regressive. We all pay local sales taxes. I just paid sales tax on the minutes that I put on my cellphone, which sounds like a service tax to me.

We should go back to a luxury tax on conspicuous consumption, plus a federal real estate tax on large properties that might as well be hotels. When the good guys get back in power, there should also be a windfall tax relief tax, for those who have received the most benefits from bushco tax policies. They are attempting to change our society in such a lopsided way, I do not believe any sane person can justify it.

Oh and Tony, I guess we need to be worried about the rouge states now as well as the rogue states, the rouge states being the red ones, where the poor folks know their place, and vote to keep the plantation owners in wealth and power.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 31, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #172420

“Blows Big Wampum Wah!”

I thought that was Monica Lewinski’s Indian Princess name.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #172424

—-Weary Willie—- Suppose I had written off more on
on my taxes with loop-holes than most above
average tax payers make before taxes. What do you think about that. I could cry all the way to the Bank. Although I am one of those that my parents
always told me A fool always runs fast to make known his wrath or A fool an his money are soon parted!

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #172428

—-Weary Willie— I would say you had better find
new accountants!

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #172430

I’ve never quite figured out why the government should profit from my death. Assuming I hit medicare age shouldnt the fact that I will no longer be collecting social security and medicare be enough of a benefit for them? By the way I have never inherited a dime and probably won’t leave much. I wonder, what assets did the Kennedys need to liquidate in order to pay the estate taxes when Joe Sr., Joe Jr, Jack and Bobby died? One would assume this combined tax bill would be massive but I don’t recall hearing about any financial impact on them, selling houses or assets such as the merchandis mart to pay the bill. Could it be that the ultra rich have ways to shelter their assets that make this tax a far bigger issue to the poor sap inheriting dads small farm or business?

Posted by: Carnak at July 31, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #172434

—-Weary Willie—- How would you like to be on the
list of 25 Corp,s that pay no tax and Receive up to 15 Mil. back an pay no tax at all.

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #172437

“Could it be that the ultra rich have ways to shelter their assets that make this tax a far bigger issue to the poor sap inheriting dads small farm or business?”

Anyone who spends a little money with a good lawyer and some time online can come up with some pretty solid ways to pass their wealth (small or large) onto their kids with minimal tax. Of course, you have to have a computer, and you have to have the money upfront for the lawyer - and you have to even be aware such options exist.

hmmm… I think you might be on to something.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #172439

Carnak,
Perhaps its because the money in question was not previously taxed as normal earnings are.
Perhaps its because your children will be receiving unearned income.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 31, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #172440

—-Carnak— Taxes are like Love an War in that none
are always fair! I wish they were. Most people
have no idea what really goes on, especially when
some Accountants, aren’t Savoy nor most people
have the desire to legally cheat other tax payers,
but this happens all over including, Foreign
interests. The subject of Taxes are far too complex
to go into. It would take at least ten Federal
IRS Tax experts to audit some large Tax payers Books, an that’s if they keep only keep one set of Books.

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #172441

——-(NOTE FIGURES DON’T LIE BUT LIERS FIGURE)—-

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #172453

“You all are funny.
You get the minimum wage you have cried for but your still upset because you won’t be able to dictate what rich people do with their own money.”

KCTim,

No, you’re FUNNY! We don’t think a huge national debt is a good thing to pass on to our children, grandchildren, great-grands, etc. If taxes are cut, spending must also be cut. Where is the spending being cut?

In large part it gets down to common sense. My dad died when I was nine years old. I had to be agressive to survive. I started working when I was 14 years old. By the time I was twenty-five I was the most stable financially in my family. I was never rich. The most “cash assets” I ever had amounted to about $100,000.00, of which Silverado Savings and Loan under the management of Neil Bush screwed me out of several thousand $, but I was, up through about 2001, the “most well off” in my family and when any memebr of my family needed help they turned to me.

Taxation is very little different than that. I’ll grant you it keeps the “scrooges” from avoiding their fair share, but otherwise it amounts to those who “can pay” paying the bill. Remember the old saying, “you can’t squeeze blood out a turnip”? Well any fool knows that deficit spending can’t continue. So, what are we going to cut?

Social security? Oh wait there’s actually a surplus there (on paper). Medicare? Well, if it’s in trouble how could the government increase spending without increasing revenue?

Where are you going to cut spending?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 31, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #172454

Mark
“Glad to see you support freedom of choice.”

Absolutely!

“I look forward to reading your arguements for freedom of choice for women and their freedom to control what they do with their own bodies”

I have no problem with that all.

“and for homosexuals and their freedom to marry a person of the same sex and for people to use whatever language they would like”

I agree 100%. Everyone should be allowed to legally marry whoever they want.
And as far as language, everybody IS free to use whatever language they wish to use. Although learning and using english will greatly aid them in their pursuit of the American dream.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #172456

JJ
“I see nothing wrong with higher taxes as you progress through tax brackets”

As I said, that is where we differ. Every man is created equal and every man should be taxed the exact same amount.

“And don’t give me that crap that the wealthy worked so hard for their money they should be able to choose what to do with it.”

Crap? It is fact! and it is the true meaning of being a free person.

“I would venture to guess that people who make minumim wage work a lot harder that most millionaires”

Maybe, maybe not. What business is it of ours though? All men are equal and should be treated as equals. In everything.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #172459

Tony
“If you get money - even if you are rich - you must pay taxes. Why do you hold the wealthy to a different standard?”

I don’t. I hold them to the same standard as I hold every other American citizen. Taxing somebody more money than another is unfair and wrong.
Every American should have the choice to keep ALL of their estate within their own family if they so choose.

Jim
“Those who save to pass on to their heirs can do so with no penalty. No class envy will be involved”

But class envy is how you get votes. By keeping people envious of those who are successful, you keep people from thinking what is equal, right and fair and make them concentrate on how much better another person has it them they.
All about the votes Jim my man.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #172461

I wonder how many of those saintly (or is it sanctimonious?) Dems cited in JayJay’s post voted against the congressional pay raise and then refused to accept it when it passed (or donated it to the poor).

Posted by: traveller at July 31, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #172462

KDem
“No, you’re FUNNY!”

Yeah, I hear that alot, I’m a Jayhawk fan:)

“We don’t think a huge national debt is a good thing to pass on to our children, grandchildren, great-grands, etc. If taxes are cut, spending must also be cut. Where is the spending being cut?”

Where? No place where it should be. Due to our former govt reps creating a dependent welfare state, neither party is willing to do what is right and fair.

“In large part it gets down to common sense.”

Thanks. I too believe “all are equal” is common sense.

“the “most well off” in my family and when any memebr of my family needed help they turned to me”

Better than expecting the govt to provide for them.

“Taxation is very little different than that. I’ll grant you it keeps the “scrooges” from avoiding their fair share, but otherwise it amounts to those who “can pay” paying the bill”

I have no problem with fair taxation, such as is covered in the Constitution.

“Remember the old saying, “you can’t squeeze blood out a turnip”? Well any fool knows that deficit spending can’t continue. So, what are we going to cut?”

Are you wanting examples? Cause I can start at foreign aid, go to social programs and continue through feel-good programs like saving the north American tit-mouse.

“Social security? Oh wait there’s actually a surplus there (on paper)”

Would be a great start. Allow individuals to choose for themselves whether they want govt to babysit their future or if they are responsible enough to do it themselves.

“Medicare? Well, if it’s in trouble how could the government increase spending without increasing revenue?”

They can’t, thats why it should be cut.

“Where are you going to cut spending?”

Give me the freedom of choice and I’ll start saving the govt every penny I can.
Until then, I’ll keep researching how to avoid them.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #172464
Crap? It is fact! and it is the true meaning of being a free person.

kctim,

If money is how you define freedom, then the tax cuts should go to those who make less money, not more. According to your definition the rich are already the freest people in America and the poor are the most oppressed. I agree, so maybe taxes should only be imposed on the rich. I’ll tell you what, if I made $1,000,000 next year and only brought home $600,000 of it, I would be ecstatic. I sure as hell wouldn’t be bitching about it.

I would agree with you if we were in a position to be giving tax cuts to anybody, but that is not the case. The government has no business giving tax cuts to the wealthy until they have their financial house in order. If that ever happens (probably not in my lifetime) then I would be all for a flat rate tax system. Right now, that cannot happen. It would be political suicide. The rate would have to be so high that the poor and working class would see their tax rates skyrocket while the wealthy see theirs plummet.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #172469
I wonder how many of those saintly (or is it sanctimonious?) Dems cited in JayJay’s post voted against the congressional pay raise and then refused to accept it when it passed (or donated it to the poor).

traveller,

I don’t know how many named in my post have done that, but I do know of at least one Democratic Senator who has been fighting for years to stop automatic Congressional pay raises. Russ Feingold has introduced legislation every congressional session to stop Congressional pay raises, and does return any pay to the U.S. Treasury above the rate he recieved when elected.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #172479

I can see we all want to do the right thing here. But for starters let’s just get the damned republicans out of office. I am so sick of being exposed to their to the stinking god fearing moral asshole majority I could puke. The world’s a mess and these assholes are making it worse by the moment. Loose em.

Posted by: Sandy N. McDonell at August 1, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #172488

KCTim,

Go Jayhawks! We agree there, and unfortunately only there.

Have you ever studied the history of America prior to FDR? Even long before the Great Depression poverty in the USA was horrible. Would you honestly prefer going back to that era? I honestly just don’t get it.

Does the thought of long lines in soup kitchens bother you? Tent cities? (Oops they might spread disease) Poor houses and poor farms?

I honestly don’t get where you’re coming from.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 1, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #172501

How about a tax where no one under the poverty level pays any tax at all. Would you liberals be up for that?

How about a tax where everyone pays the same rate (with the exception of those under the poverty level). Would you conservitives agree with that?

How about a tax that brings in the same amount of money and costs us less. Would anyone oppose that?

We need to get away from an income tax and adopt a consumption tax. The rich can make all the money they want and it won’t cost them any more. The poor won’t pay anything and the middle will pay about the same they are paying now and can control to some extent how much they will pay.

If this sounds like “pie in the sky”, just think of all the people who aren’t being taxed at all now who would under the plan. Drug dealers and Illegal aliens and tourists come to mind. Almost all tax evasion would be gone. As would 1040 forms, w-4 forms, CPAs and some accountants would have to find more work.

I have read the “Fairtax” plan and can’t find fault with it.

I would love to here some honest debate on the plan.

Posted by: Tom D. at August 1, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #172514

KDem
Why automatically assume the worst? You have no way of knowing what giving people back their rights and freedoms would do and to make doom and gloom predictions like that is wrong. There really are people who can take care of themselves if they were just left alone.
This issue is very emotional.
People allow their emotions to cloud what is right or wrong.

Where am I coming from?
A dream world I guess. Who would have thought our country would come to a point where equal treatment for all and freedom of choice would be frowned upon.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #172517

Trav
“I wonder how many of those saintly (or is it sanctimonious?) Dems cited in JayJay post voted against the congressional pay raise and then refused to accept it when it passed (or donated it to the poor)”

I would be willing to bet quit a few are doing that, easy brownie points with the voters.

“If you care about poor folks, act like it! Give them a day by themselves. Don’t mix their problems up with the richest of the rich of this country. Hypocrisy!? I’ve now seen it all.”
~Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY [Watch the video here]

Wow, rangel seems very upset and concerned about the poor doesnt he.
Funny how they never mention how after his quote, rangel climbed into some type of fancy lacky driven car, went back to his million dollar bank account, expensive home and started whining about how nobody is doing whats right for the poor.

Its political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, Members of Congress raised their own pay - no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect.”
~Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Common sense also says that if you “say” you really care about the poor, you wouldnt go home to a billion dollar empire every night. You would live a modest life and use all of your success to help those you “say” you care about.

It is not possible to be a wealthy liberal and if you claim to be one, you are a hypocrit.

Give people freedom of choice and they will vote for you.
Make people dependent on you and they will vote for you.
The former is American, the latter is…..NOT!

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #172527

Tons of real facts here (lol)…
AND a lot of what people think…

Bottom line…
Dems want redistribution of wealth…
Reps don’t.

Posted by: Cliff at August 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #172528

Hey…
Line item veto would take of all this crap…
How about it?

Posted by: Cliff at August 1, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #172533

“All men are equal and should be treated as equals. In everything.”

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 11:24 PM

I would love to see that principle put into effect at one of those corporations you hypocrites hold so dear. Or in the laws that you hypocrites pass.

In other news, I looked at the breakdown of the votes and came to a conclusion. This is so stupidly ridiculous that at least two Texas Repubs even voted no!


Revolt! For our lives and our childrens’ futures are at stake and under imminent threat!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #172538

Tom D.,

I absolutely agree that the income tax should be abolished. There was a reason our founding fathers forbade it. Our current system is way too complicated. Complicated systems open up loopholes and cause corruption. The tax system should be fair and more importantly simple. Deductions create complications and are unfair, they should be eliminated. In addition, other side effects would save both citizens and the government money. The IRS could be reduced or eliminated. Citizens would save the expense of tax preparers (H & R Block would probably go out of business.)

The big question is, if we were to go to a consumption tax what would the percentage have to be. I have a feeling that it would be very high right now. As I said earlier, I think the first thing we need to do is get our financial house in order so that any tax will be relatively small.

Maybe someone here can tell me something. I have heard it said that the biggest and fastest growing part of the budget is social programs. What are considered social programs? Shouldn’t social programs be much smaller today than they were pre-1995? I believe the welfare system was reformed to put limits on the # of years you could be on welfare. Also, if the unemployment rate of 4.7% is accurate, then there should be relatively few people collecting welfare.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #172541
Hey… Line item veto would take of all this crap… How about it?

Cliff,

I do not agree with the line item veto, the unitary executive has already usurped too much power from the legislative and judicial branches. A better solution would be a one purpose per bill law, where pork would have to stand on it’s own two feet. From d.a.n.’s site one simple idea:

ONE PURPOSE PER BILL: Start simplifying government by allowing ONLY ONE purpose per bill (i.e. only one or more items that are necessary for the one purpose of the one bill). This will cut out the pork-barrel and graft that sneak into huge bills, in which pork-barrel consisting of numerous unrelated items is hidden within thousands of pages that few (if anyone, much less voters) reads or scrutinizes. This will allow voters to easily see how politicians voted. This will increase transparency, which will lead to more accountability, and responsibility. Currently, it’s nearly impossible to know why a politician voted for or against a bill. Perhaps, this lack-of-transparency is by design? It’s certainly become a popular vehicle for hiding excessive pork-barrel, graft, bribes, and waste.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #172546

It is precisely the income tax that has allowed our government to grow into the monstrosity it is today. It is also the reason that state’s rights have been trampled. Power was suppose to come from the people up to the state. Federal power was suppose to come from the people (The House of Representatives) and from the state (The Senate). All federal power not given to it by the Constitution was to come from these two sources. What the income tax has done is turned the system topsy-turvy.

Massive amounts of money have allowed the federal government to have the power to blackmail the states. If the states do not fall in line with the federal government then they are penalized by not receiving federal funding. Most of the time states have no choice because they need those federal dollars.

In order to restore the balance as set out by our founders, we should abolish the income tax and any direct federal tax on citizens, and require that the federal government be funded by taxing the states. That way the states hold the power that money brings, not the federal government. In addition, it would allow each individual state to formulate what kind of tax would be used to pay taxes to the federal government.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #172553
Republicans are worried about the “cost of living” for multi-millionaires?! What the hell is that? If the working class’ “cost of living” increases, guess what? Republicans don’t give a shit.

JayJay:

If this passage had been at the beginning of the story, I would have stopped reading right there…nothing more than senseless profanity that has no place in respectable politcial arenas.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 1, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #172554

And they call Democrats elitists?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #172563

Cliff

If the Dems want redistribution of wealth and Repubs don’t then why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer at a faster rate than ever before? As a Dem, I say you can take this redistribution of wealth and can it.

Posted by: mark at August 1, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #172569

——Alex——Every time I think of the Dirty little
Secret of the richest of us all have their money
invested off shore, paying no taxes at all, makes me
want to use a few Profanities also! That amount
happens to in the TRILLIONS-not-BILLIONS and you should cuss about that.

Posted by: DAVID at August 1, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #172570

——-I also believe most Politicians are profane
as shown by their actions!

Posted by: DAVID at August 1, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #172575

Cliff - Good intentions aside, Republicans take from the middle and give to the rich, while Democrats take from the middle and give to the poor. Neither is very healthy for the common American.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #172576

I was watching cspan and part of the minimum wadge bill aslo included a part that will add your tips into your income. that way you won’t get a raise or pay more taxes if you are in the sevice industry.Thats realy going to help the little guy.Thank god for republicans I don’t how the poor could get buy with out them.

Posted by: chris at August 1, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #172581

chris - Employers are usually required to pay a little more than half of minimum wage to tipped employees. The proposed increase from $5.15 to $7.25 would have meant just over $1.00 per hour change in a persons income. It has “always” been the customers that support these workers. If we want to help the little guy, it’s up to us with our tipping practices.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #172590

“nothing more than senseless profanity that has no place in respectable politcial arenas.”

— Dick Cheney ???

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #172619

JJ,

The sales tax under the Fair Tax plan would be about 23% inclusively. Exclusively it would be 30%, but since income tax is figured inclusively, the same standard should apply to any tax plan for comparison.

Although that sounds high you have to consider it will eliminate the income tax at whatever bracket you are in. That should be at least 15% for the lowest bracket I believe. Plus it also replaces social security tax which is another 7.75% paid directly by the employee plus the 7.75% that the employer pays that he can and should pass along to you. So already we are paying at least 23% taxes.

Since companies aren’t taxed by the same 23% (roughly) for the products they produce they can and will due to competition lower their prices by about the same amount. If they don’t the public will support the companies that do.

The plan is revenu neutral meaning it will bring in as much revenue now as income tax does. It will do this by taxing everyone the same.

Criminals will be taxed at the same rate, illegal aliens will be taxed at the same rate and even tourists will be taxed at the same rate. Looks like an end to the underground economy.

The rich will be taxed more because they buy more and more expensive items than the average person.

Those below the poverty level won’t be taxed at all. Everyone will get a “pre-bate” equal to the tax which would be due on necessities for the month so the only tax the poor would pay would be for luxery items which most poor people don’t buy.

I can’t find any problem with it. Can you?

Posted by: Tom D. at August 1, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #172643

Tom D.,

The only thing I would add is that I don’t like this part:

Those below the poverty level won’t be taxed at all. Everyone will get a “pre-bate” equal to the tax which would be due on necessities for the month so the only tax the poor would pay would be for luxery items which most poor people don’t buy.

Only because it adds a complication to what needs to be a very simple system. I would rather that everyone be taxed the same rate on purchases regardless of income. Food, which is a neccessity for everyone, should be tax-free for everyone.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #172652

Check out the plan JJ. I think you will like it. Since everyone gets a “prebate” to cover necessities effectively, no one pays taxes on food or other necessities.

Personally I would like to see everyone pay the same rate also from an idological viewpoint but that wouldn’t be acceptable in the USA. Our compassion is too great and none of us want to see the poor suffer. I really don’t mind helping those under the poverty level, especially if they are trying to help themselves.

I don’t like a lot of entitlement programs becaust I think they are unfair.

Posted by: tomd at August 1, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #172676

OK - so how does this plan work with corporations and other non-individual commerce? Right now I produce film/video for companies who pay 6% sales tax on some of the work, but not all of it. If I have to add 25% tax on top of that, my clients will not be able to come up with more money, so I will probably have to loose that profit, which a huge amount. I can not pay my employees less because they will want their full salaries since they have to pay the additional purchase tax.

Also, what about services? I pay a maid $80 per visit, and no tax. Do I have to add 25% on top for the tax, or does she pay out 25% od what she makes?

Also, how do you plan to enforce the new tax? I can see lots of people finding a million ways around this tax, and now you’re talking about billions if not trillions of sales interactions rather than the millions of annual tax returns.

Believe me when I say I do not like the tax plan we are under now. My tax return (done my an accountant) is usually 40 pages or so… and I always find it amusing that I have to sign it stating that everything in there is true and correct. You could stick in a receipe for brownies in the middle of it and I’d wouldn’t catch it.

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #172766


“I’m all for tax cuts and smaller government,”

Please tell us which taxes you would cut and by how much, and also which government programs you would cut and/or eliminate?

Posted by: tim lebsack at August 2, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #172785

Tom D says

“It will do this by taxing everyone the same.”

“I can’t find any problem with it. Can you?”

By default, a consumption tax is regressive. That is wrong.

With a consumption tax, a person who lives on $100 dollars week pays a lot more of his livelihood in taxes then does a person who lives on $1,000,000 dollars a week. That is unfair.

Let’s stick to this idea of capitalism…

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
—Adam Smith

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 2, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #172795

tim lebsack,

Hmmm…that sounds like a good topic for another post. Stay tuned!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 2, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #172862

“By default, a consumption tax is regressive. That is wrong.

With a consumption tax, a person who lives on $100 dollars week pays a lot more of his livelihood in taxes then does a person who lives on $1,000,000 dollars a week. That is unfair.

Let’s stick to this idea of capitalism⦣x20AC;?

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
—Adam Smith


Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 2, 2006 10:33 AM “


Evidently you haven’t read the plan. Under the FT plan anyone living on $100 per week would actually have a negative tax. In fact they would get more back in a “prebate” than they would pay in taxes. How is that regressive?

What is the purpose of taxes? If the purpose of taxes is to raise revenu to support the government then the FT plan will do that without punishing anyone. If the purpose of taxes is to punish the rich then the FT plan won’t work. What do YOU think is the purpose of taxes?


Some math…
Assuming income=expenditures

Single Person below poverty

Current system
Income $8500
Standard deduction $3300
Current tax bracket 10%
Payroll taxes 7.65%
Payroll taxes paid $650.25
Income taxes paid 0
Take home pay $7849.75
Effective tax rate 7.65%

With Fair Tax
consumption $8500
Fair Tax paid $1955
Annusl Prebate $2254
Left over $8799
Effective tax rate -3.5%

I ask again…How is this regressive?

Posted by: Tom D. at August 2, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #172867

JJ,

I’m hardly a proper spokesman for the Fair Tax plan. Everything I see about it so far I like. Let me refer you to a place where all your questions can be answered

As I said, I’m not a proper spokesman for it, I’m throwing it out to see what support their is for it and to see if anyone can punch holes in it before I throw 100% support behind it.

If anyone has actually read the plan or HR-25, Please give your opinions.

Posted by: tomd at August 2, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #172870

JJ,

Sorry I forgot to post the link

Fairtaxgroups.com

Thanks


Posted by: tomd at August 2, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #172877

Tom D,

Question 1: How is that regressive?

I understand that a person living below the poverty line would not pay your consumption tax; I used that $100/week pay to demonstrate a scale.

But still, it becomes regressive the moment at what ever the floor/ceiling one starts to pay.

Someone just above your line pays the same 3.5% that someone way above it pays. That by definition is regressive. Punishing those who make the least (in the group the pays). They are the ones that more of their livelihood goes to taxes.

If one makes enough for their basic needs, and the taxes they pay, that is 100% of their income spent, with zero to save/invest. Now as one creeps up the economic ladder, the easier that 3.5% becomes to pay. Yet those at the top get to benefit the most from the investments this country makes with its tax that everyone pays. Those that benefit the most are obliged to pay back more, and not just as a flat return. The ability to pay taxes has been a hallmark of capitalism since it’s inception.

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
—Adam Smith

Question 2: What is the purpose of taxes?

Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 2, 2006 6:06 PM
Post a comment