YAY! Tax Cuts!!!!

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bill awarding tax relief to investors and 15 million taxpayers facing the alternative minimum tax was moving toward a Senate vote as President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill anticipated a long-sought election year victory.

The legislation provides a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008.
It also would extend, for this year, recent changes to the alternative minimum tax -- originally aimed at making sure the wealthy pay at least some taxes -- to prevent it from hitting more upper middle-income families.

The House debate divided starkly along partisan lines, with Republicans crediting the tax cuts, first enacted in 2003, with a surging economy, millions of new jobs and booming tax revenues. Democrats countered that the tax cuts are tilted in favor of wealthy investors, that the economic benefits are not as great as advertised and that they make the budget deficit worse.

"Our pro-growth policies have helped the economy create more than 5.2 million jobs since August of 2003," Bush said in a statement. "By extending key capital gains and dividends tax relief, the House has taken an important step to continue to help hardworking Americans and to keep our economy strong and growing."

Added House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, "By extending key provisions of that tax relief, today's legislation adds just another spark to the already booming economy."

Critics, including most Democrats, attacked the tax rate reductions on dividends and capital gains as being skewed in favor of the rich. They noted that it was the second half of a GOP budget package that began with $39 billion in deficit cuts over five years, many of which came from programs for the poor such as Medicaid.

Democrats also cited a joint study by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that shows taxpayers with incomes greater than $1 million per year winning tax cuts of $42,000 under the bill, while families with incomes of $50,000 a year would average a $46 tax cut.

"The Republican Party ... is sending all the millionaires on an all-expenses-paid vacation -- for $41,000 a year," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington. "The rest of America is being forced to choose between filling the gas tank or stocking the refrigerator."

Added Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts: "You cut taxes for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

Just 15 Democrats joined all but two Republicans in voting for the bill.
Passage of the bill is the first step of a two-track strategy for advancing the GOP's election-year tax cut agenda.

The first, $70 billion tax bill focused on investor tax breaks and alternative minimum tax relief and it can advance under special rules blocking Senate Democrats from filibustering it to death. Another bill will advance later that contains up to $30 billion in tax breaks backed by Republicans and Democrats.

Those including preserved tax deductions for state and local sales taxes, a tuition tax deduction, a tax break for teachers who buy their own school supplies and a research and development tax credit for businesses.

Under the bill passed Wednesday, wealthier people would be allowed to transfer retirement savings into Roth IRAs. This would provide a shorter-term revenue boost, and therefore helped lawmakers fit more measures into the bill. That's because money moved from traditional IRAs into Roth accounts is taxed immediately, instead of later, when taxpayers withdraw their invested money.

Opponents say the Roth plan would help the Treasury now but shortchange the government in future years because money saved in a Roth IRA grows tax free.

The bill also would extend for two years provisions sought by small businesses to let them write off up to $100,000 in investments in equipment.

"What we do today protects jobs, protects the incomes of our people, strengthens America's economy and protects our future," said Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Connecticut.

However, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said it would increase people's debts, cut taxes for the super-rich and do little to help Americans struggling with high gas prices.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/tax.cuts.ap/index.html

The bill was approved 244-185, largely along party lines; 15 Democrats, including Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), voted for it, and two Republicans opposed.

The measure's centerpiece is a two-year extension of tax cuts passed in 2003 that reduced the tax rate on most dividends to 15percent from as high as 38.6percent and the tax rate on most capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. The provisions will cost the Treasury $20.6 billion over five years and $50.8 billion through 2015, says the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The other major piece, at a cost of $33.9 billion, would stem the reach of the alternative minimum tax, which was enacted to hit the rich but is increasingly pinching the middle class.

But other measures found their way into the bill. At the request of the Nashville music industry, tax writers allowed music companies to write off their musical advances in five years, a $13 million break over the next decade. Songwriters would be able to treat the sale of their creations as capital gains instead of income, a $20 million break.

Corporations that create settlement funds to compensate for environmental damage would not have to pay taxes on the investment gains of those funds, a 10-year, $116 million break. Midsize ships plying the Great Lakes would get a $20 million break through 2015.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0605110192may11,1,4935844.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

I love this. We're not even pretending to help the poor anymore, we're now openly targeting the high earners. We are giving tax relief to the people who need it the least.

Though this tax cut is great for me. Who cares about debt when the $45 my family is getting can almost buy me a new release game?!?! Though maybe I shouldn't spend all my money at once. I know, I'll buy a months worth of coffee with my tax cut. Wait, no, a small coffee costs 1.56. I can buy 28 days of coffee!
 
Or two Greatest Hits titles. Sony needs to make back their losses on those consoles, and poor people don't buy as many games.

Don't you know anything about economics? [/sarcasm]
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I love this. We're not even pretending to help the poor anymore, we're now openly targeting the high earners. We are giving tax relief to the people who need it the least.

[/QUOTE]


what's this "we" stuff? I didn't vote for the fucker.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I wish I was making 1,000,000 per year, I'd love to take advantage of a tax cut.[/QUOTE]

I wish I was making a million a year, fuck the tax cut.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

I love this. We're not even pretending to help the poor anymore, we're now openly targeting the high earners. We are giving tax relief to the people who need it the least.

Though this tax cut is great for me. Who cares about debt when the $45 my family is getting can almost buy me a new release game?!?! Though maybe I shouldn't spend all my money at once. I know, I'll buy a months worth of coffee with my tax cut. Wait, no, a small coffee costs 1.56. I can buy 28 days of coffee![/QUOTE]

Tax relief means we should be redistrbuting more money to the poor ? Where is it written that we're SUPPOSED to help the poor? The poor don't pay taxes in the first place so why should they care about tax cuts for the rich? They won't be affected either way.

Wait a second, in your example you say you can buy 28 days of coffee with YOUR tax cut. So, giving the poor more money in the form of a tax cut/credit is bad becuase we're not giving them enough? How much is enough?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Tax relief means we should be redistrbuting more money to the poor ? Where is it written that we're SUPPOSED to help the poor? The poor don't pay taxes in the first place so why should they care about tax cuts for the rich? They won't be affected either way.[/quote]

I'm the new karl marx! :lol:

I'm not sure why you don't think the poor pay taxes. And, when the budget is tight, social programs get cut.

Though, I would like to know why, if someone were to get a tax cut, it should be the rich? It's like having a box of canned goods. Who should get it, the guy living in the $2 million home or the family who skips breakfast every morning? It's not even a question of the poor requiring it. It's you chose to do such an act, why give it to those who don't need it?

Wait a second, in your example you say you can buy 28 days of coffee with YOUR tax cut. So, giving the poor more money in the form of a tax cut/credit is bad becuase we're not giving them enough? How much is enough?

My family makes about 50k a year and gets a $46 tax cut. It's a joke, it won't mean a damn thing. And the effect in other areas (debt, social services) is worse for society as a whole.

But, if the guy making a million were cut down to 50k, and the tax cut percentage stayed the same, he'd be getting $2100. He's getting a tax cut 45 times larger (relative to his salary) than someone making 50k. It's absurd.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']why give it to those who don't need it? [/QUOTE]

Simple. Because people who have money have it because they earned it. Those who don't have money don't have it because they don't work hard, if they work at all.

Deserving:
paris%20hilton5s.jpg


Undeserving:
07McDONALDS2,0.jpg
 
Is the person in the bottom picture holding a tray of all the things that have been inside the person in the top picture (and I dont mean in the stomach either ;)).
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Is the person in the bottom picture holding a tray of all the things that have been inside the person in the top picture (and I dont mean in the stomach either ;)).[/QUOTE]

Well, I did say she was deserving, I suppose.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Tax relief means we should be redistrbuting more money to the poor ? Where is it written that we're SUPPOSED to help the poor? The poor don't pay taxes in the first place so why should they care about tax cuts for the rich? They won't be affected either way.[/QUOTE]


a government is supposed to protect its citizens, not just its rich ones. Protection also involves giving everyone the opportunity to succeed, not just letting the people born with a silver spoon in their mouthes to live happy lives.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']a government is supposed to protect its citizens, not just its rich ones. Protection also involves giving everyone the opportunity to succeed, not just letting the people born with a silver spoon in their mouthes to live happy lives.[/QUOTE]

Lovely. Go share some granola with alonzo and Myke. This is what the liberals arguments always degrade into: the politics of envy and greed. Ace hit the nail on the head.

People with money are greedy, undeserving, and stealing from the poor. No one is deserving of wealth above and beyond a refrigerator half-filled with food.

People without the right amount of money have some imaginary claim on the money of the "rich" for an undefined basis we like to call "need". For this need we can break down the basis of civilization and private property to redistribute money equally among the masses in order to be fair. Yet it never seems to ever be enough redistribution to become fair unless we strip everyone of all wealth so that everyone can truly be equal. Isn't this the ultimate goal for utopian society you closet communists wish to force on everyone?

I hate to tell you this but we are not equal. If you had the power to redistribute all the world's wealth to everyone, let's say, a million dollars to each person, and let the race begin with an even playing field, within days the inequities would appear. Our inequalities such as intelligence, risk management, and ingenuity would separate the producers from the looters. When the looters become numerous enough, they can steal the wealth and redistribute it to everyone all over again, dismantling any progress and standard of living in the process.
 
So, mulligan, I assume you support giving a tax cut 45 times larger (if you adjust the salaries to make them equal) to the rich than to the lower middle class and poor? After all, that's the argument you are attacking.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, mulligan, I assume you support giving a tax cut 45 times larger (if you adjust the salaries to make them equal) to the rich than to the lower middle class and poor? After all, that's the argument you are attacking.[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you talking about- adjusting the salaries to make them equal- garbage? You need to seperate percentages from amounts and proportions in your analyses.

If you adjust the salary of a millionaire to that of one who makes $50k, then you pay the tax of someone who makes $50k.

If you want a flat tax, just to make things fair, fine, I'll bite. But you don't want that. You want that millionaire to forfeit every penny of his ill-gotten gain, or at least enough to make you satisfied. Deep down you think that $50k is more than enough to live on and any more than that is greed.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What the hell are you talking about- adjusting the salaries to make them equal- garbage? You need to seperate percentages from amounts and proportions in your analyses.

If you adjust the salary of a millionaire to that of one who makes $50k, then you pay the tax of someone who makes $50k.

If you want a flat tax, just to make things fair, fine, I'll bite. But you don't want that. You want that millionaire to forfeit every penny of his ill-gotten gain, or at least enough to make you satisfied. Deep down you think that $50k is more than enough to live on and any more than that is greed.[/quote]

A person making 50k gets a $46 tax cut, a person making 1 million gets a 42k tax cut. If the person making 50k had his salary increased to 1 million, yet the tax rate staid the same, they'd get a $920 tax cut. The person making 1 million keeps 4.2% more of their salary, while the one making 50k keeps .09% more of their salary. Why is a greater tax cut being given to the wealthy?

They decided to give a tax cut here. If someone is going to get a tax cut, why should the people who make less get a lesser tax cut percentage wise? This isn't an issue of whether it should or should not have been given, it has been given.
 
If you make less money than a rich person... you simply aren't paying the same amount of taxes he is paying. Is that really so hard to understand?

And when you take into account the taxing rates where the higher your earnings the HIGHER your percentage rate increases, that poorer guy is actually paying much less than his richer fellow citizen in terms of ratio of earnings.

I'd much rather see something along the lines of the Fair Tax, but that isn't going to ever happen because gov't house (along with filthy rich folks such as the Kennedys and Soros of the world that don't want anybody else to be as rich as they are) have hornswoggled poor & lower middle class people into thinking it's the right thing to do to soak "rich" folks. Most of the brainwashing via the politics of envy and greed-- which just so happen to appeal to the basest parts of human nature.

I believe that: more money in private hands / less money in gov't hands = best country. And when people are taxed less, they can do more with their money. That has a positive effect on the economy all the way from the top to the very bottom. Uh oh, did I just sound like trickle-down economics? :)
 
[quote name='penmyst']If you make less money than a rich person... you simply aren't paying the same amount of taxes he is paying. Is that really so hard to understand?

And when you take into account the taxing rates where the higher your earnings the HIGHER your percentage rate increases, that poorer guy is actually paying much less than his richer fellow citizen in terms of ratio of earnings.

I'd much rather see something along the lines of the Fair Tax, but that isn't going to ever happen because gov't house (along with filthy rich folks such as the Kennedys and Soros of the world that don't want anybody else to be as rich as they are) have hornswoggled poor & lower middle class people into thinking it's the right thing to do to soak "rich" folks. Most of the brainwashing via the politics of envy and greed-- which just so happen to appeal to the basest parts of human nature.

I believe that: more money in private hands / less money in gov't hands = best country. And when people are taxed less, they can do more with their money. That has a positive effect on the economy all the way from the top to the very bottom. Uh oh, did I just sound like trickle-down economics? :)[/QUOTE]

If you truly believe that it's the left in this nation who is the problem, can you explain to me how it is Democrats who are responsible for the enormous increase in the rich/poor income and wealth divide during 25 years of supply-side economics? Why it is that we're prone to believe in bumper-sticker tripe used to support supply-side economics (e.g., "A rising tide raises all ships"), and be completely ignorant of stagnant mean incomes, the increase in dual-earner households, the stagnance of the minimum wage despite decreases in the spending power of the dollar, among other examples (forgive me for being very hungover and having much water on the brain)? I could go on and on, but you get the idea - how did we go from a society in which one could hold a blue-collar job and sustain their family to one in which we not only view a blue-collar job (or jobs, as the other spouse is increasingly more likely to work) as punishment for past sins and poor life-choices, but don't seem to mind that a family can't be sustained any longer on such wages?

The reality of the end of supply-side planning is increasing wealth and income in the hands of the elites and diminished opportunities and wealth for the workers; it's not as powerful as the mythology that it made so many people wealthier and created so many wonderful jobs, but it's a bit more grounded in reality.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Simple. Because people who have money have it because they earned it. Those who don't have money don't have it because they don't work hard, if they work at all.[/quote]

You know, its people like you that I hate with a fucking passion (bmulligan even more so because I hate little bitches that whine and cry about liberals)! I don't care if thats a joke or not. To be honest, I'd rather take a 357 and shove it in Paris Hiltons vagina and pull the trigger...she'd be prettier to me that way...
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']You know, its people like you that I hate with a fucking passion (bmulligan even more so because I hate little bitches that whine and cry about liberals)! I don't care if thats a joke or not. To be honest, I'd rather take a 357 and shove it in Paris Hiltons vagina and pull the trigger...she'd be prettier to me that way...[/QUOTE]

The photos I presented, as well as the vast majority of my posts, should indicate to you that I was being sarcastic.

And Paris Hilton is just a very publicy visible example of what many of us already know about many wealthy people and families. I'm not sure what I did to raise your ire so much, but whatever it is that makes you hate me with a fucking passion, I can only hope that you find something important in life to focus that emotion on, rather than lil' ol' internet posting me.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']You know, its people like you that I hate with a fucking passion (bmulligan even more so because I hate little bitches that whine and cry about liberals)! I don't care if thats a joke or not. To be honest, I'd rather take a 357 and shove it in Paris Hiltons vagina and pull the trigger...she'd be prettier to me that way...[/QUOTE]

Hopefully this uncontrollable anger will cause you to be the next resident of your local prison. Someone of your constitution and predilection to violence shouldn't be allowed to wander the streets unsupervised.

I realize the internet is an unbridled and uninhibited emotional outlet for most, including myself, but this type of statement crosses the line into psychotic behavior.

"And Paris Hilton is just a very publicy visible example of what many of us already know about many wealthy people and families. " -mykevermin

Nice, myke, we all know that rich people are all undeserving, spoiled dick-heads who are underserving of their ill-gotten wealth. Obviously you share a deep seeded envy and desire to strip all wealth from everyone undeserving becuase they must be demonic pricks by Paris's example. I find it hard to believe you know any morbidly wealthy people other than the ones in the news and media.
 
Wow, you don't know me all that well. Believe me, I've been in situations where I could have blown my top and landed myself a lengthy stay in the vertical bar hotel (one of which comes to mind where me and a couple of friends wanted to beat the hell out of some navy pukes that were provoking us, and we just sat there and decided not to act on it). But you know what? I know better than to unleash it. And I was making an observance that you seem to dislike and bash people that don't agree with you. I'm just gonna take the higher route and leave all this alone...
 
bread's done
Back
Top