Undecided voters

[Nick Douglas]

Jason Alexander was on Bill Maher's show acting bewildered by the fact that there could be a sizable number of undecided voters in this election. While this administration surely has polarized the country like no other in memory, I find that I identify with undecided voters.

As many of you know, I believe in many liberal public policies. For that reason I generally vote Democrat. That said, I have to admit the following:

-Bush clearly believes in his policies, rightly or wrongly. With Kerry, I get the feeling he's trying to please his constituents rather than doing what he believes in. A perfect example is the question of abortion. Kerry is pro-choice, but he's on record saying that life begins at conception.

-Bush is more forthright about his past mistakes. He seems to take the attitude that even though he's erred in the past, he's going to do his best to make the best possible decisions in the future. Kerry has been very reluctant to come forward in that manner on topics where he has been criticized.

-Bush inspires more confidence as a leader. He seems to have a clearer vision of what he wants to accomplish and he's willing to stomp on a few daisies to get where he wants to go.

All that being said, there is no way I'm voting for Bush. The economic and foreign policies of Bush and the neo-conservatives are terrible for America in my opinon. Examples:

-Too much military spending.

-Too much accumulation of national debt, which helps the wealthy few that the government owes and hurts the poorere masses who might be assisted by government funding.

-Too brash an attitude with preemptive invasions of other countries.

-Too uncompromising with other countries on general foreign policy.

-Too many proposed tax changes that are likely to benefit wealthy Americans. The rediculous "fair tax" is the worst example but it spreads to reductions in capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

-Too willing to introduce legislation that could potentially reduce civil liberties or reduce the rights of citizens to be compensated when they are taken advantage of by the wealthy (i.e. corporations, hospitals, etc.).

My point in all of this is that I am among the many Americans who would love to vote for Bush as a strong leader, but don't want to vote for Bush because his policies are ideologically wrong. It makes this election a very tough one to decide upon for many Americans. One could then make the leap to ask why the democrats would nominate such an uninspiring candidate when they have such a golden chance of winning, but that's another thread entirely.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Nick I think the economy and war on terror are closely related----and on the tax issue--what is errant about this----

Separating Tax Facts From Tax Fiction

Saturday, June 12, 2004

By Gail Buckner, CFP



Dear Readers ?
I really try to avoid anything that smacks of politics, but I can't help setting the story straight on a popular American myth ? repeated with increasing frequency in this election year ? that "The Rich" (whoever "they" are) don't pay their fair share of taxes.

A corollary to this is the assertion that The Rich received the biggest benefit of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts," the political catch-phrase for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.*

Neither position is supported by hard data taken from income tax returns. In fact, in both cases, the opposite is true.

In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430.

Because lower-income individuals are paying a smaller piece of the total tax revenue pie, the portion paid by those with higher income must, by definition, go UP.

It will be a couple of years before 2002 and 2003 income tax data are in a form that can be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department estimates that this year the portion of tax paid by those with higher incomes will increase again. That's because tax provisions such as marriage penalty relief have a bigger impact on taxpayers with lower

incomes. In addition, some tax breaks phase out once your income hits a certain level. Those with higher incomes see no benefit at all from, for instance, the increased child tax credit.

When they crunch the actual numbers for 2004, the folks at Treasury predict the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers will fall by 16 percent, compared to a 12 percent decline for those in the top 1 percent of income.

In fact, according to the Treasury Department, nearly 5 million additional Americans will end up paying NO income tax at all in this year, thanks to the tax breaks ushered in by the 2001 and 2003 Acts.

The data are also broken down by state. For instance, thanks to changes in the tax code, 12.4 million Californians will pay less (federal) income tax. More than a million Pennsylvania taxpayers will benefit from the reduced tax rates (15 percent) on dividends and capital gains. Nearly 4.2 million Illinois residents will pay less because of the new 10 percent income tax bracket. 1.6 million New Yorkers will see their taxes reduced thanks to the increase in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000.

In this country we have what's called a "progressive" tax system. It means that those who can theoretically afford to pay more in taxes, do. But it's important to understand that this doesn't merely refer to the number of dollars that are collected from those with higher incomes. It means that, as your income goes up, so does the tax rate on that income.

For 2004, a married couple filing jointly pays only 10 percent income tax on the first $14,300 of taxable income. But on income from $14,300 to $58,100, the tax rate is 15 percent. When their income exceeds $58,100, the amount over this is taxed at 25 percent, meaning they give up 25 cents of every dollar of income over $56,800. Once a couple's income reaches $117,250, they lose 28 cents per dollar, and so forth until you hit the top tax rate where 35 cents per dollar goes to taxes.

In other words, as your income climbs, taxes eat up a progressively larger chunk of each additional dollar you earn.

That's how the system works. My point is, it IS working, contrary to the political rhetoric you hear.

Hey, I understand why politicians make a scapegoat out of The Rich ? this group can't be defined by race, gender, lifestyle, or any other convenient demographic characteristic. Besides, are The Rich actually going to unite and take a stand? Can you just see a thousand well-dressed individuals holding a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to proclaim, "We're rich and we think it's unfair that we pay a larger portion of income taxes?"

In other words, it's safe to pick on The Rich because: 1) they're easy to resent; and 2) they're not going to defend themselves.

Just remember that politicians don't have to adhere to any rules about being "fair and balanced."

Gail

*Interesting, don't you think, that one side of the current political debate conveniently forgets that it took votes by Republicans and Democrats in Congress to approve the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation?

**$7,150 for someone who files as a single taxpayer.

 

[Turfgrass]

All that being said, there is no way I'm voting for Bush. The economic and foreign policies of Bush and the neo-conservatives are terrible for America in my opinon. Examples:

-Too many proposed tax changes that are likely to benefit wealthy Americans. The rediculous "fair tax" is the worst example but it spreads to reductions in capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

Could you please tell me why the "fair tax plan" (HR 25/S 1493) is rediculous?

And how are reductions in Capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes a bad thing?

 

[dr. freeze]

Nick thinks that 4% of the tax bill footed by the bottom 50% is way too much

 

[Turfgrass]

Yeah, and I guess being born into money should be frowned upon also.

My kids shouldn't be able to keep any of the wealth I have accumulated through the years to make their life a little less of a struggle.

What a joke.

 

[kosar]

My kids shouldn't be able to keep any of the wealth I have accumulated through the years to make their life a little less of a struggle.

What a joke.

Definitely agree with that. The amount of times a specific dollar bill can get taxed in this country is absurd and the estate tax laws are the most insane of any of them. What a joke is right.

 

[RAYMOND]

Over 1,000 Rally for Family, Faith, and Freedom!

Dear RAYMOND,

Last week in New York City, over 1,000 RNC Convention Delegates and guests attend Bush-Cheney '04's Family, Faith, and Freedom Rally . The Rally focused on President George W. Bush's strong stand for conservative principals, his personal faith, and his commitment to defending marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Nationally syndicated talk radio host Hugh Hewitt MC'd the event, which featured keynote speeches by Senator Sam Brownback and Dr. Ralph Reed who called on those in attendance to reach out to their friends and family to make sure they were registered to vote and know the differences between President George W. Bush and John Kerry. The Bush faithful were also reminded of the close margins in this race and the difference they will make in helping the President win.

<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_04space.gif>
<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_r7_c1.gif>

When Democrats Attack!

Now that President Bush is leading in most of the national polls, the Democrats are sure to attack. Be prepared for the worst.

In the September 13th edition of the New Yorker, Former Vice President Al Gore attacks President George W. Bush's faith by saying "It's the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim" Simply put, he is calling the faith of George W. Bush as fanatical as those who attacked our nation three years ago.

Moreover, the Minnesota Democratic Party this week was distributing bumper stickers in one of their headquarters that stated "Bush/Cheney - The most hated world leaders since Hitler."

On Monday, tabloid author Kitty Kelly who most notoriously accused Nancy Reagan of having an affair with Frank Sinatra, will turn her sights to President Bush and his family. In her new book, she attacks President Bush and his family by accusing First Lady Laura Bush of selling drugs and President George W. Bush of doing drugs at Camp David. Of course, these accusations are patently false. Look for John Kerry and the Democrat attack-machine to continue to launch outlandish smear attacks.

<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_midline.gif>

Leaders Supporting President Bush

Several national leaders have recently announced their support for President George W. Bush. To read more, go to www.GeorgeWBush.com/Values

"Well, I'll be voting for President Bush. Once again, I'm not speaking for Focus on the Family, but as a private individual, but the IRS allows me to do that, and I do it enthusiastically. President Bush understands the great moral issues of our time. I don't think there's a greater public policy issue before us than the issue of marriage, and it is on the ropes, it is in danger, and if the family goes down the entire country goes with it. [President Bush] has had the courage to take a stand. He's been hit hard by [the press] for taking a stand for marriage like he's done, but...I appreciate him doing that. Also [his defense of] the sanctity of life and many other moral issues, to say nothing of the way he's run the country. I think he's done a good job."
-Dr. James Dobson

"George W. Bush is the right man to lead America because he possesses character, integrity, and a clear vision for the nation. Our President knows what he believes, and is centered with core convictions which do not change. This kind of leadership is strong, stable, and morally responsible."
-Dr. Jack Graham

<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_r7_c1.gif>
<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_donatead.jpg>
<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_r7_c1.gif>
Pennsylvania Events
? September 11, 2004
BC '04 Door to Door - Hamburg

? September 11, 2004
BC '04 Literature Drop - Haverford

? September 12, 2004
BC '04 Rally

View every state's events here.
<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_r32_c5.jpg>
Quick Vote

Which part of President Bush's compassionate conservative agenda is most important to you?

Fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic
Encouraging faith-based initiatives
Promoting independence & an ownership society
Reviving civic involvement & volunteer initiatives


<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_r7_c1.gif>
<http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/GWB_email_hlatestheadlines2.gif>
? September 10, 2004
President Bush: "We'll Pass the Enduring Values of Our Country to a New Generation"

? August 31, 2004
Mrs. Laura Bush Proud of President Bush's Accomplishments, Sense of Purpose, and Optimism for America's Future

? August 28, 2004
Bush-Cheney '04 One Millionth Volunteer Joins President Bush on Ohio Bus Tour

? August 05, 2004
President Bush and Ohioans Share Commitment to Strong Families and Communities

 

[Nick Douglas]

DTB,

An interesting article, but as you know we don't see eye to eye on taxation. The vast majority of the services afforded by tax revenues (police, firemen, judges, prosecutors, prison employees, military, etc.) disproportionately benefit the rich. Many of those folks do great work but the reality is that they are here to keep the status quo intact, which benefits wealthy Americans. If you don't believe me ask the average rich person what they think of those people and ask the average poor person. You will get hugely different opinions of policemen, prosecutors and judges especially). It is for this reason that I find it just that wealthy Americans are taxed at a higher rate than poor Americans.

All that said, I've never complained about the cuts on income tax. It is just the work done on capital gains and inheritance taxes that irks me. The government taxes all new money for all Americans, whether it's earned at a job, won at a casino or given in inheritance. Methods of accumulating money that are largely exclusive to wealthy Americans (capital gains and inheritance) should not be exempt from this general rule.

Turfgrass,

I've stated before why the Fair Tax plan is terrible. For the uninformed, the Fair Tax plan would erase all federal taxes save a 30% sales tax on all goods and services (in addition to current state-imposed sales taxes). There are plenty of major problems with this plan:

-Business for organized crime and the black market would boom. When citizens are asked to pay such an insane percentages on all purchases, you can be certain that many will gravitate towards illegal ways of avoiding taxation. This means...

-...that the Fair Tax supporters' claim that the IRS could be eliminated is erroneous. An enormous organization would still be necessary to keep tabs on sales taxes being paid to the government. Most Americans sell at least one good or service in some form every year so a similar level of oversight would be necessary to enfore the payment of this 30% federal sales tax.

-The poor would be disproportionally taxed. To make the Fair Tax theory work, citizens would have to spend an equal percentage of their income along all revenue levels. Obviously this simply doesn't happen. Though wealthy Americans do spend more money than poor Americans, the percentage of their income that becomes spent money on goods or services is minute in comparison.

-Projections for gaining the needed revenue with a 30% federal sales tax and no income taxes would fall short. Projections the Fair Tax group has made are based on current spending levels. With such a massive tax on goods and services, the legal market for them will drop dramatically. The result would likely be more federal debt initally, followed by a dramative increase in the federal sales tax. A nasty cycle would then likely begin where the federal sales tax keeps increasing and national spending keeps decreasing, causing a near perpetual budget imbalance.

Many people who propose this plan are simply looking to keep more money in the pockets of wealthy Americans. There are, however, some who are really trying to make a positive change. Unfortunately, their logic is flawed. When it comes to taxation, forcing people to pay is the only way to run an orderly society. Once people get the "choice" in how much they pay in taxes by tying it to spending, people are going to find a way around paying taxes by hook or by crook. People already do evade taxes, but in the current system at least payroll taxes force some kind of normalcy and a way for the government to get the money that is owed to them. With the Fair Tax system, how will criminals be tracked? In the current system it is of benefit to employers to report the income that will be taxed. In the fair tax system, where's the two way reporting? A person who buys a product pays the tax and has nothing to report. That leaves the seller (the taxpayer) as the only person involved in the equation with an obligation to notify the government. In short, it's an "honor system" that could lead to near economic anarchy.

 

[Turfgrass]

Turfgrass,

I've stated before why the Fair Tax plan is terrible. For the uninformed, the Fair Tax plan would erase all federal taxes save a 30% sales tax on all goods and services (in addition to current state-imposed sales taxes). There are plenty of major problems with this plan:

-Business for organized crime and the black market would boom. When citizens are asked to pay such an insane percentages on all purchases, you can be certain that many will gravitate towards illegal ways of avoiding taxation. .

The FairTax captures billions of dollars of revenues currently lost in the underground economy. Even drug dealers pay their share of taxes when they purchase goods and services. The simple fact is, the more money one spends under the FairTax, the more consumption taxes one pays. Those who buy luxury items pay more; those who live more modestly pay less.

This means...

-...that the Fair Tax supporters' claim that the IRS could be eliminated is erroneous. An enormous organization would still be necessary to keep tabs on sales taxes being paid to the government. Most Americans sell at least one good or service in some form every year so a similar level of oversight would be necessary to enfore the payment of this 30% federal sales tax.

The FairTax also eliminates the IRS?s unwelcome surveillance of every penny of income earned, loaned, won or invested by American citizens. In place of the huge bureaucracy created to collect federal taxes, the FairTax uses the existing states sales tax infrastructure to collect taxes at the point of retail sale. The intrusive interest from our government into its citizen?s financial status is eliminated overnight.

Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax will simply be an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents will receive a fee for collection, and the states will also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states will then be sent to the U.S. Treasury.

-The poor would be disproportionally taxed. To make the Fair Tax theory work, citizens would have to spend an equal percentage of their income along all revenue levels. Obviously this simply doesn't happen. Though wealthy Americans do spend more money than poor Americans, the percentage of their income that becomes spent money on goods or services is minute in comparison.

Our present tax system is one of the reasons that people are finding it so difficult to get ahead these days. It is one of the reasons the next generation may not have a standard of living as high as this generation. The income tax is holding us back and making it more difficult than it needs to be to improve our families? standard of living. It makes it needlessly difficult for our businesses to compete in international markets. It wastes vast resources on complying with needless paperwork.

Is the FairTax fair? Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases. If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.

Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. This automatic refund won?t mean much to the wealthy but will be quite significant to low and moderate-income families and to those on fixed incomes. Everyone receives the refund, including the wealthy in order to eliminate both means testing for the poorest Americans and the need to track earnings for everyone.

The FairTax has no exemptions, no shelters, and no complex tax dodges available primarily to the wealthy and special interest groups. The only thing every taxpayer can know about the current code is that it is an eight-million-word mess that no one has ever read. But even a child can understand the 13 words that define the FairTax: ?The FairTax is applied to all new goods and services delivered at retail.? Nothing other than such obvious simplicity can immunize the tax system from lobbyists who are paid so well to wring special treatment for the few from the current federal tax code. Such transparency also makes it far more difficult for Congress to create hidden taxes or to change the tax rate.

-Projections for gaining the needed revenue with a 30% federal sales tax and no income taxes would fall short. Projections the Fair Tax group has made are based on current spending levels. With such a massive tax on goods and services, the legal market for them will drop dramatically. The result would likely be more federal debt initally, followed by a dramative increase in the federal sales tax. A nasty cycle would then likely begin where the federal sales tax keeps increasing and national spending keeps decreasing, causing a near perpetual budget imbalance.

Many people who propose this plan are simply looking to keep more money in the pockets of wealthy Americans. There are, however, some who are really trying to make a positive change. Unfortunately, their logic is flawed. When it comes to taxation, forcing people to pay is the only way to run an orderly society. Once people get the "choice" in how much they pay in taxes by tying it to spending, people are going to find a way around paying taxes by hook or by crook. People already do evade taxes, but in the current system at least payroll taxes force some kind of normalcy and a way for the government to get the money that is owed to them. With the Fair Tax system, how will criminals be tracked? In the current system it is of benefit to employers to report the income that will be taxed. In the fair tax system, where's the two way reporting? A person who buys a product pays the tax and has nothing to report. That leaves the seller (the taxpayer) as the only person involved in the equation with an obligation to notify the government. In short, it's an "honor system" that could lead to near economic anarchy.

All goods and services already contain the embedded costs of the current tax system in their prices. When these embedded taxes are removed, prices come down. Dale Jorgenson, Ph.D., former chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, has projected an average producer price reduction of 22 percent for goods and services in just the first year after the adoption of the FairTax. In addition, the FairTax lowers compliance costs by an estimated 95 percent and the removal of these costs will force prices down even lower.

We can achieve the dream of upward economic mobility for all citizens if we first believe that our goal is attainable. The FairTax ? truly an issue that delivers on the promise of individual liberty ? will survive the distortions of presidential politics, and with a demanding public, the FairTax will achieve the Congressional passage and a signature from the White House. It all starts with telling the public the truth, and believing we can change things. I believe.

 

[kosar]

Turf,

Good post.

I've always thought that this sort of thing would be the best way to go as far as taxes are concerned. national sales tax, fair tax, whatever. I defer to others when talking about macro-economics, so i'm wondering how the opponents of this plan try to explain why it would be bad. And would it really work?

 

[Turfgrass]

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

Yes, in fact, consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income. A recent study by American Farm Bureau economist Ross Korves shows the FairTax base was less variable than the income tax base. Why? Because during difficult times due to loss of a job or an inability to work, people may not have as much income, or may have no income at all. They borrow funds or use savings. They may not have earnings, but they still continue to consume.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. The FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax rebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more hidden taxes on goods (averaging 22 percent) or services (averaging 25 percent), and used goods are tax-free.

 

[kosar]

Thanks turf. I really can't see how that tax is not 'fair'. It would be wonderful to be done with the current tax code.

I remember a long thread here a while ago about this and I kinda remember some other people whose economic knowledge I respect(maybe bobbybluechip and/or ironlock) vehemently argue that this wouldn't work, but I forget why.

 

[Turfgrass]

www.fairtax.org

 

[dawgball]

Nick Douglas states:

-Bush clearly believes in his policies, rightly or wrongly. With Kerry, I get the feeling he's trying to please his constituents rather than doing what he believes in. A perfect example is the question of abortion. Kerry is pro-choice, but he's on record saying that life begins at conception.

-Bush is more forthright about his past mistakes. He seems to take the attitude that even though he's erred in the past, he's going to do his best to make the best possible decisions in the future. Kerry has been very reluctant to come forward in that manner on topics where he has been criticized.

-Bush inspires more confidence as a leader. He seems to have a clearer vision of what he wants to accomplish and he's willing to stomp on a few daisies to get where he wants to go.

I think this somewhat points out one of the major flaws in our political system. As our leader (or CEO), this should no doubt be the person who receives your vote. Americans are so ingrained with their political party, though, that they vote issue over leader. American voters are not the only individuals at fault here, though. Politicians are so entrenched with their corresponding party that they do not act on what they feel is best for their country stepping aside for the party's best interest.

This is one of the reasons why I am Republican. i feel that the Democratic Party preys on the topic of the day to lure people in. Right now, both parties are heavily covered in the stink of the Iraqi War debate, but historically it is usually the Democratic Party that takes the "sky is falling" approach but never stands on solid ground.

I would not be comfortable voting for Kerry because I have zero clue what the guy is about/for. Like Nick said, you may disagree with Bush but at least you know that you disagree with him and you can state the reasons why. With Kerry, you never know where he is, so you don't know if you're with him or not.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[spibble spab]

Nick Douglas states:

-
I would not be comfortable voting for Kerry because I have zero clue what the guy is about/for. Like Nick said, you may disagree with Bush but at least you know that you disagree with him and you can state the reasons why. With Kerry, you never know where he is, so you don't know if you're with him or not.

Just some random thoughts.

:iagree: