Basic Math

[drisley]

This is for you liberals out there:

2+2=4. Ok, got it? Good.

30% of $1000 is $300. Ok? Ok, and 40% of $100,000 is $40,000, right? OK, we're doing good here.

When you take a percent of a larger number, the answer is higher. Do you understand?

Okay, Bush's tax cut gives everyone a tax cut. Those who make less money pay less money to the government. Those who make more money pay MORE money to the government. AS A RESULT, those who make more money are going to get a lower PERCENTAGE tax cut, but more actual money. Those paying hardly any taxes will get a HIGHER percentage, but because they pay hardly any taxes, they will not, of course, get as high a number of dollars back.

Okay, those with money pay enough taxes do buy a crapload of lexuses. Those who make hardly any money obviously pay hardly enough taxes to buy a muffler. So, why do you guys get upset about this?

Back to basics: if you pay more taxes, you get more back. If you pay hardly anything, you will get hardly anything back.

Okay, just thought I'd point that out, cuz it seems you guys forgot that part in school.

BTW, since when did giving people some of their money back turn into government SPENDING?!

[jessho]

The news keeps portraying the Bush plan as one that gives the wealthiest the bigger tax cut. This is correct, but in the context of the reports, it is bad for this to happen.

If the wealthiest have more money, I don't think they will bury it in the back yard in mason jars. The money will be invested, spent, or saved. Ultimately the entire economy will benefit from the increase of wealth in the private sector.

Personally, I think I will use mine to buy a new pair of cowboy boots.

[bob]

No tax for the waitress. Double the deduction for kids. No Capital gains and increase the million dollar deduction on the "death" tax to unlimited.

Sounds like a targeted tax cut to me.

Just to clear it up.
Take the amount of money YOU make each year.
Say for example a nice even number like $50,000

Now take someone that makes 5 million

We pay the exact same tax on the first $50,000 - they get the same tax cut as us on the first $50,000

Now they also get higher cuts on the 5 million - 50,000 plus no capital gains, plus pass all wealth that they are to stingy to put in a trust to their heirs (no regard to their ability to manage capital)

Yes, someone would need to be tutored on basic math to accept that tax cut as fair.

[Prader Willi]

Its misleading to just report how much rich people's taxes will be reduced. The press should also report how much the so called rich acutally pay in taxes-- this would provide some perspective.

So Dachle says a millionaire will have taxes reduced by enough to buy a Lexus-- he doesn't point out that the millionaire also paid over 33% of his or income in taxes (well over $300,000)-- that's a heck of a chunk.

How dumb or depressed do you have to be to say you don't want a tax cut because someone else might get more money back than you? That makes no sense at all. Actually, the latest polls are showing that most people are not falling for this liberal class warfare propaganda.

[drisley]

Bob, you're talking numbers, but in a sliding scale percentage-based income tax system, you can't. We're talking percentages here, because that is what our tax system is based on.

Liberals always think us Republicans just like to sit around and throw bones to the rich all day. Its completely idiotic. Just becuase we're not stealing their money and giving it to the poor, that makes us unfair. Its dumb, and I don't see how anybody can see this as anything but fair.

[jessho]

Any tax relief, whether I get any or not, will help the economy. The federal government has, and will, misuse the money collected from taxes, whatever the source. Individuals with more money will spend more money whether it is for themselves or the people that work for them. Either way, the economy benefits.

[troysvihl]

i completely agree jessho. take tax cuts, where and when we can. Personally, I think the Bush tax cut plan is a joke. Much too small and spread out over too long a time. most of the phase-ins will be repealled before they get fully implimented.

1.6 over ten years with most of the cuts gradually phased in over a ten year period? That's supposed to be a "massive" tax cut? Give me a break, it's less than a 8% cut in the federal budget.



BTW, imagine if only the rich were taxed. Using the Democrat's thought process, there could never be a tax cut since it would always "give away" too much to the rich!

[Edited by troysvihl on 02-10-2001 at 08:12 PM]

[bob]

class warfare

Are there classes or not. Funny thing is most low income consertives do not beleive there is a class system.

In a class system it is rare to move up much further than the next class. Who are you cheating.

[troysvihl]

>>Funny thing is most low income consertives do not beleive there is a class system<<

no, i think most low income conservitives realize that socialism is not the answer to moving up to the next class.

[Edited by troysvihl on 02-11-2001 at 04:43 AM]

[bob]

We should agree there should not be any classes.

But there are. My question stands.

[troysvihl]

>>Who are you cheating.<<

i'm guessing this is the question you are asking. I'm not cheating anyone. All the money I've made is through my own hard work and isn't coming out of anyone else's mouth.

>>We should agree there should not be any classes.<<

sorry, don't agree bob. (does this mean that hell is thawing? or that the four horsemen are going back to stable? lol) some people dont' want to work as hard as others. i myself have only really enjoyed one job that i've ever had, that being a pizza delivery guy. if society were classless, and i'm assuming by classless you mean equal pay, there is no way i'd work harder to get where i am today if the reward is the same in the end. if i'd be paid the same, i would have been more than conent to just stay a pizza delivery boy.

But if you're really bent on a "classless" society, then you have to redistrubute wealth, and I want nothign to do with that. My labor belongs to me, and if I have to give it to another, I simply won't work.

Like the characture of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged: I will not live for the benefit of another.

If by my labor, I help another, then I am glad. But the benefit to anther is soley incidental to my labor, and not the main goal of mine. My labor is for me, and me alone.


[Edited by troysvihl on 02-11-2001 at 04:45 AM]

[bob]

It is not a matter of hard work. GW was able to study at the last minute and become the POTUS. Trust me, the only free ride most people can give their kids is: (put current social problems here)

[drisley]

Originally posted by bob
It is not a matter of hard work.


Wow, Bob. I got a book for ya: Communist Manifesto. You'll love it. Right up your alley.

So, if the world was the way you think it is, the rich just TRIP over their money and say, "damn, I'm lucky". Come on. Of course they work for it.

I'm sure glad you're in the minority. At least I hope so. no offense.

[Prader Willi]

All of the so-called rich people (people that make over $200,00 per year) that I know personally or know of (Physicians,lawyers, psychologists)generally work much longer and harder than the middle class people I know. The wealthier people are all working 10 to 12 hour days, 6 to 7 days per week and live to work, while the middle class people (especially those that belong to unions)are hard pressed to put in 40 hours per week and live for vacations, personal, and sick days-- they generally want to work as few hours as possible (I fall into this group).

I think it is just a defense mechanism then to promulgate the myth that the middle class work much harder and longer than the wealthy and the wealthy should therefore be punished through taxation. It is easier to say this than to admit that a person might just be lazy and not bright enough or motivated enough to earn alot of money.

So many liberal malcontents say George W. is dumb and was born into properity. But wait, George has an MBA from Havard, was a successful executive in an oil company (and earned alot of money), owned a professional baseball team, was an effective and successful governor of Texas, and ran a successful compaign to become the POTUS. If this is what 'dumb' person does, what does this say about his detractors who haven't accomplished much of anything and can't even figure out a butterfly ballot?

[troysvihl]

Only one out of five "rich" people had wealthy parents. That means 80% of rich peopel earned their own wealth in their lifetimes. And a very simple law of economics (one that Karl Marx forgot about) says that if something is easy to do, it's a pretty sure bet to not be very profitable since everyone else could do it to. That means wealth = hard work.

[jessho]

If there is a "class system", how do you explain Bill Clinton becoming President?

[Prader Willi]

I think Clinton has more to do work with 'classless' than having 'class'. :)