Middle Class Tax Cuts Extended

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
tax cuts to the wealthy

this got bi-partian support, i believe.


beware, after the election they will try and ram through tax cuts to the wealthy.

and working stiffs will be burdoned with paying the brunt of this huge Bush deficit.

btw, those tax cuts benefit myself and many of my friends.
 
deficits yes
huge deficits

perhaps I have no clue about economy and the consequences of increasing avarage age and all
but I couldn't justify tax cuts like these if I tried to
 
Aren't ya'all in the deficit gutter down there or something? Why tax cuts at all? I'm very confused by it all.
 
Thank you, nbcrusader, for helping me to prove my point that the poor are getting poorer in the good ol' USA.

From the article you provided us comes this quote:

"Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D - Arkansas, also was unsuccessful on efforts to expand the part of the child tax credit that is refundable to LOW-INCOME wage-earners with children.

'This would provide additional tax relief for working families' she said, arguing that her provision would have benefitted more than 4 MILLION FAMILIES WHOSE EARNINGS ARE TOO LOW TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT."

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING - the poor in the USA are not able to benefit from Bush's tax cuts as much as higher income wage earners! :tsk:


I KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHAT I SAY - my income tax refund has been cut to provide tax relief to those who make more money than me! :(

nbcrusader and all my other Bush supporters - WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT?

THERE ISN'T ANY and Bush knows it. :ohmy:

It's time for the American People to know it too.

Definitely time for regime change.... :yes: :up:
 
Jamila said:
'This would provide additional tax relief for working families' she said, arguing that her provision would have benefitted more than 4 MILLION FAMILIES WHOSE EARNINGS ARE TOO LOW TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT."
Click to expand...

Uh, those would be people who owe NO TAXES.

So, again, I am confused by what you are saying.
 
nbcrusader said:


Uh, those would be people who owe NO TAXES.

So, again, I am confused by what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I'm confused too.

I prepare taxes for several very low income people every year and they generally pay no taxes, state or federal.

After taking the child tax credit, renters credit, earned income credit and child care credits, the average refund for them the past few years has been around $3000.

Once my own income went into the 28% tax bracket, I stopped getting a refund at at all and actually owe most years. I might be considered one of those "wealthier" Americans but I haven't benefited from those tax cuts at all.
 
82 Major Firms Paid No Federal Taxes

A study says 'loopholes' let the companies avoid payments at least once in the last three years.

By Emma Schwartz
Times Staff Writer

September 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — Eighty-two major U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes at least once in the last three years, even while they reported more than $100 billion in U.S. profits during the years they paid no taxes, a study released Wednesday found.

Authors of the study, the liberal policy groups Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said the finding reflected a broader trend of increased tax breaks that had allowed corporations to pay a smaller share of the nation's total tax burden.

Among the companies cited: AT&T Corp., Boeing Co., Prudential Financial Inc., Time Warner Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Walt Disney Co.

"When people in corporations aren't paying their fair share, someone has to pick up the bill," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) at a Capitol Hill briefing unveiling the study. Instead, the increased burden falls on small businesses and the general public, Doggett and others said.

Robert S. McIntyre, coauthor of the report, said the number of "tax-avoiding companies reflects the results of aggressive corporate lobbying and a White House and a Congress eager to do the lobbyists' bidding."

The share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has been declining for decades. Some policy experts say a lower corporate tax burden is the only way for the U.S. to remain competitive as other countries, particularly in Europe, decrease theirs.

"Raising corporate taxes is not going to happen. It would be the U.S. shooting itself in the foot," said Chris Edward, director of tax policy for the Cato Institute. But he added it was unfair that some corporations paid a different tax rate from others.

The study examined public filings from 275 of the Fortune 500 companies, which reported $1.1 trillion in pretax profits for the years 2001-03. Had they been taxed at 35%, the ostensible corporate income tax rate, the companies would have paid $375 billion in income taxes over the three years. But a series of what the study called "loopholes and other tax subsidies" cut their combined bill by $175 billion.

Half of that — $87.1 billion — went to 25 corporations, including $9.5 billion in tax breaks to General Electric Co. alone, the study said. On average, the companies' tax rate fell to 17.2% in 2003 from 21.4% in 2001.

Of the 82 companies that paid no taxes at least once during the study period, 30 paid no taxes in two or all three years, the study said. Some companies generated so many "excess tax breaks" that they received rebate checks from the government, the study said.

The low tax rates were concentrated in a few key industries: aerospace and defense, transportation, petroleum, utilities and electronics.


A spokesman for GE disputed the study's figures. "We've protected and created high-paying, high-value jobs in the United States," David Frail said.

Increased offshore tax shelters as well as Bush administration tax cuts fueled the plunge in tax payments, the study found.

The study illustrated the uneven levels of corporate tax payments, which have fueled debate among legislators and policy officials, the authors said. It followed an April report by the Government Accountability Office, which found that 61% of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes during the economic upturn from 1996 to 2000.
Click to expand...
 
With such a complicated tax structure, corporations are better off by hiring large tax departments that can guide them to the most adventageous provisions. This has gone on for decades.
 
nbcrusader said:


Uh, those would be people who owe NO TAXES.

So, again, I am confused by what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Actually no. I think you're getting low income families confused with no income families. For example, families on welfare do not pay taxes. Families that do not get welfare but are still poor have to pay taxes.

And believe me, this is not a break. With the deficit at record levels, a little money in your pocket now is going to be alot of money out of your pocket later when you have to pay more taxes to get the deficit under control.

This is scary. I thought the Republicans were fiscally conservative. These tax cuts did not work to stimulate the economy the way they were supposed to. The same thing happened in the '80s when Reagan implimented tax cuts. The difference is that Reagan realized it wasn't working and instituted the highest tax INCREASE in the country's history at that time.

This is not good for the country especially not when we have to pay $200 billion in Iraq with no hope of ever seeing that money again.

NB, if you think this tax cut is so great can you please explain to us how Bush plans to PAY for this break?
 
nbcrusader said:


Uh, those would be people who owe NO TAXES.

So, again, I am confused by what you are saying.
Click to expand...
that's my biggest issue with it though

when you're on a low income or have no income at all you will hardly gain anything by tax cuts
as a result you are dependant on social securities, healthcare etc if something terrible should happen to you
or nothing terrible happens to you but you just are too old to work anymore

a government with huge deficits doesn't have the money to take care of people who really need it
that's not a communist approach on economics but a human approach on life
 
Last edited:
Salome said:

a government with huge deficits doesn't have the money to take care of people who really need it
that's not a communist approach on economics but a human approach on life
Click to expand...

:up: :hug: Exactly! I was just listening to "Homegrown Democrat" by Garrison Kellior, and he makes this exact point. The public mindedness, the take-care-of-your-neighbor-because-thats-just-what-you-should -do is dwindling, and Norquist and Co's insane mission to destroy government via demonizing taxes (his words, not mine) even though he KNOWS and has said on public record it's bad economics is a major reason why it's gone. :down: (See the Krugman article I posted for details if you want. :))

It's worth noting how Scriptual this is too--love thy neighbor. Due unto others. Care for the widow and orphan. The needy. It's one of the most consistent themes throughout the entire Bible. I will never understand how the religious right justifies their stance in this light.

Okay, back to class work. :madspit:

sd
 
sharky said:
NB, if you think this tax cut is so great can you please explain to us how Bush plans to PAY for this break?
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, tax breaks are paid by an improved economy generating higher revenues. It is not paid, nor is ever intended to be paid, within the same fiscal year budget.
 
if you would have stated
"tax cuts are supposed to be paid by an improved economy "
I would agree

then the problem would still be that not everyone benefits from an improved economy
unless you are able to establish an economic eutopia
 
Sherry Darling said:
It's worth noting how Scriptual this is too--love thy neighbor. Due unto others. Care for the widow and orphan. The needy. It's one of the most consistent themes throughout the entire Bible. I will never understand how the religious right justifies their stance in this light.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is just a swipe at conservative Christians, but there is significant work done by Christian (and other religious) organizations to fullfill these Biblical commands. The command is personal and is exercised by multitudes each day.

Jesus never said "vote for big government so someone else can take care of the widow and orphan."
 
Needless to say, Jesus said little about government, and believe me, he could have said a lot about the Roman Empire. His ultimate goal was to change the hearts of people so they could become his followers and disciples. "Render unto Caesar" is an oft quoted verse. Also, Paul always spoke of serving the government (unless they commanded one to do something contrary to God such as sacrificing to other gods or bowing to Caesar).

Regarding taxes, low-income people do pay very little. I grew up in a very low income household (but no welfare) and my family always got money instead of paying. Of course this is just one family, but I would imagine that there are many others like this.
 
Ft Worth Frog, I must disagree!

I don't know how old you are, but the tax codes have been radically altered over the years, so your family's experience years ago ARE PROBABLY NOT THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE OF US LOW-INCOME WORKING PEOPLE TODAY! :ohmy:

Also, do you know how much your family got? What was the percentage that they got back compared to people in higher tax brackets? The AWFUL TRUTH is that in today's America, the working poor are paying a HIGHER % of their income compared to higher income tax payers - where is the justice in that?

THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ANY. :tsk:

The Census Bureau's statistics last month showed that more and more people are working for less in the USA and are becoming poorer because of it. At the same time, because they are making less money, they don't make enough money to take advantage of these tax cuts for childcare! :scratch:

Can someone explain the fairness of that?:confused:
 
i hate when people say tax cuts only really help the wealthy. they help everybody, but because the wealthy are paying the most taxes by far, obviously they will get the most back. this article explains it very nicely.

Sometimes Liberal Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and, by some, its accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to
pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men
surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Mexico and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D Distinguished Professor of Economics 536
Brooks Hall, University of Georgia
Click to expand...
 
:up:

i just don't get the whole "tax cut for the rich" thing. obviously, if a person pays more, they'll get more money back, even with a lower rebate percentage than people who paid fewer taxes.

why is it fair to penalize the rich just because they're rich? if a guy pays 100 in taxes, and another guy pays 10 in taxes, and they're given a tax rebate, exactly how would it be fair to give the guy who paid 10 and equal amount to the guy who paid 100? you're punishing the guy who paid more taxes to begin with. i don't get it. maybe i'm just stupid or something.
 
I dont believe in penalising the rich 'just because they are rich' either.

I want to ask this as straight forward as possible to those who think the rich shouldn't pay more:
Do you think, yes or no, that all individuals in society should do what their means allow, to bring everyone up? To pay more if it is needed to get things like health and education as available as possible? Consider that wealth itself means little in terms of 'rights' as we then need to seperate the means of wealth. Some are born with it, some win it, some work very bloody hard for it, some are skilled such as athletes etc, some are lucky and find a rare way of making it easily. Is all their wealth the same, in terms of 'why should they be penalised'?


:huh:
 
nbcrusader said:


I'm not sure if this is just a swipe at conservative Christians, but there is significant work done by Christian (and other religious) organizations to fullfill these Biblical commands. The command is personal and is exercised by multitudes each day.

Jesus never said "vote for big government so someone else can take care of the widow and orphan."
Click to expand...

NBC, disagreeing is not a swipe. LOL. As far as I know, Christ never really spoke to the issue of "big" versus "small" government.

I've taken a lot of classes and and researched and written about this issue, however, and I've seen a lot of research that demonstrates that a thriving public sector reduces poverty. Great (not just "will do") schools pull kids off the streets. Fully staffed and equipped and *nationally covered* hospitals provide medical care to the low income and impoverished. Check out the UN Human Development Index, for example. Countries with strong welfare states have lower rates of poverty, and (this really struck me) lower rates of violent crime.

I think the "charity" arguement is flawed, as much as those who give to charity, as I do myself, have their hearts in the right place. It ignores the big picture of the *systems* that create the need for charity in the first place.

Angie, great questions! Appreciate your post!

Peace,
Cheryl
 
Sherry Darling said:
I think the "charity" arguement is flawed, as much as those who give to charity, as I do myself, have their hearts in the right place. It ignores the big picture of the *systems* that create the need for charity in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you, you explained that very well.
 
Should people become dependant and to the state for survival, in the long term is a welfare state a desirable option, does it not create the very systems that seem to perpetuate poverty when they inevitably break down.
 
There has to be a balance of perpetuating poverty and preventing it. People shouldn't be dependant on government assistance, nor should the be denied it.

One example: Currently, too many jobs are created to get around paying health insurance. Too many people can't afford that option or don't even have it. Our government should put in effect some laws and/or assistance to make health insurance for people affordable and mandatory. The corporations aren't going to turn around and become generous. They only care about the shareholders - not the employees. It's up to the government to fix that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaveC
Pious plonker or just misunderstood: why we should all lay off Bono
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
A
The Little stranger chapter 15
Replies
0
Views
554
annj
A
A
the little stranger chapter 2
Replies
0
Views
528
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 5
Replies
0
Views
679
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 17
Replies
0
Views
521
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom