One of the basic principles of Anglo-American law is that the dead should not control the policy of the living. Typically, as a conservative you are against traditional values and have inserted a new one: concentrate wealth at all costs.

By the way, the rich trust fund kids get a stepped up basis in the inherited assets, so what's your problem? Apparently you're simply for the concentration of wealth.

Here's a question: if wealth concentration was shown to result in the undermining of our Constitution and democratic values, would you still be for it. Of course you would!.



Yep, you're in error. Socialism isn't even about income redistribution, but public ownership of the means of production in key industries such as energy. There is no such thing as "socialist" tax policy that can be discerned from theory or practice. It's appalling how you throw these labels around apparently without knowing anything about the theory and practice of socialism.

By the way, I'm not for socialism -- I'm just for retuning the progressive tax rates to what they were under Eisenhower, that bastion of socialist values!


If you're claim is there is no such thing as rich people, then it seems your argument is even more desperate than I first thought.



You have to be kidding. Whether a millionaire puts $1M in a bank or 100,000 working people put $10 in the bank, makes no difference to the bank. But it makes a lot of difference to job growth, since the top 1% don't use capital to start businesses.

By the way, do you really think that rich people put money into banks? If they do, somebody needs to tell them about Modern Portfolio Theory (and you too apparently)



Why would less wealth be created? Apparently you have again moralized wealth and think that the rich are somehow "responsible" and the poor feckless. I've already rebutted that. 40% of the rich are just lucky to have rich parent. Indeed, an argument can be made that the rest are really just lucky -- Bill Gate's had a rich mom with an in at IBM that resulted in us having to endure his horrible OS. It was pure bad luck that he got to IBM and not Steve Jobs.

But your whole premise is nonsense: the superwealthy have so much income that they can neither spend it nor invest it in job creating start ups. Working Americans do that. Why is it that you market fundis dislike hardworking Americans so much?

Proportional only if you have all the necessities. The 38 million in poverty do not have all the necessities. A person in poverty that gets 25% of their income taken away by taxes loses $4,000 of their $16,000. A person that makes $200,000 gets $50,000 taken away. Now the person in poverty must live 52 weeks on $230 and the person making $200,000 must live on $2,800 dollars a week. For $230 a week, I couldn't even afford to die. While an additional $75 may not sound like much, and it's not, it's a big deal to the person in poverty.

Read his biography. He didn't so much drop out as he did leave - to start Microsoft. And what college did he leave? Harvard, one of the most expensive in the country. He also attended a private high school. His father was a lawyer and his mother a school teacher. He is no rags to riches story. His story is classic American; he went from rich to richest.

Landru Guide Us made an excellent point, but allow me to reiterate. More people with money means they are going to spend it and circulate the economy. Consolidated wealth is not good for the economy. That's why whenever there is a Republican President the economy is in the tank, and whenever there is a Democratic President that taxes the top earners there is a healthy economy.

This is where the debate would begin. We could decide as a people what is fair. As a starting point, I would like to see all Americans have the ability to obtain the necessities; food, clothing, shelter, heat, electricity, health care, education, and transportation (public). After that, compromises would have to be made. I'm not talking about total equality, but disproportionate can be defined by consensus. Is 10x more than the lowest earner too much? Probably not, but I know that 430x is disproportionate and that's what some CEOs make.

My argument to you is that we do not have a free society. Our society is controlled by corporations and businesses. Those are totalitarian institutions. Directives come down from above and compliance is a demand, not a request. I work for a corporations and I have never been asked for input, neither have my colleagues or my manager. We get e-mails saying, "This is the new policy." They tell us what to say, how to act, and what to wear. That is not freedom, that is a dictatorship. There are no alternatives. Banks won't loan you money to start a business if you have no job. And other jobs operate in the same manner. There is no place in this country that corporations cannot reach you. They control everything...even you.

I know how it works leder. My problem is that the worker is always blamed for a bad quarter or poor sales. The excuse is "They are paid too much." The worker is paid the least and sweats the most. I live in St. Louis and have seen three automotive plants, that were receiving subsidies from the state close down. Subsidies are not capitalism. That's where your argument loses traction. It can't be capitalism if the state is paying for your profit. That's called socialism.

If Communism doesn't work then why the policy of containment? Why fight it if it is doomed to fail? You never answer this question and I have put it to you on a few occasions. Why containment? Why detente? Why not let it run its course? Because both these systems work, one helps out a few powerful people and one system helps out the mass of people. You have even suggested that theoretically it is a more benign economic system than capitalism. Since NSC-68, Communism has been impeded. Watch the events in Venezuela, a country that eight years ago had 55% poverty and now has 37%. If it continues to drop, our government, through influence by our corporations will need to stop it again, or it will head this way. Trust me, 38 million people in poverty and growing are going to look for a change and communism is just the answer.

Hey, the accumulation of wealth is the maximization of entropy really, no just kidding.

I still stick by my original idea that we don’t have a solid idea of what needs to be taxed for. Some people support everything to be privatized, I don’t though. So if we have public goods, such as public education, or public roads for instance, they will follow suit in requirement money to exist in our system. Now as a person, I did not have a heavy hand in much everything I touch, I did not build my computer no more then I built the internet. To make society open for just the individual pretty much neglects that historically our species exists in societies. Now not to say that the individual should not exist, that’s unrealistic thinking all on its own. In reality though, I don’t think the best system for societies have come to exist yet, but to be back on topic.

"socialism" as its referenced in modern American society, such as taxes is used by a great majority of people, it does play an important role in a healthy America. This does not mean its needs to be abused in either drastic tax cuts or drastic tax increasing. I hate property tax for instance, such is crud to me, but that’s my opinion like most of this post.

If America could stop running around in some perpetual state of I am right and you are wrong, we might be able to figure out what exactly should be taxed for or not, that in itself is best for society, and in accordance all of the individuals in it. This could give a baseline of what should be taxed for, and then of course how much people should be taxed, instead of constantly changing taxes, for this that and the other, and then death to many things from such changes also.

There is only so much money in America, or at any giving point, not everyone can be a millionaire, more so taken into account there is a finite amount of energy or matter, or resources to do this on, in the most reduced sense, its only logical then to work from this in my opinion overall. It does not have to mean discrimination or punishment. If you are born poor or born rich, you should have an ability to change this, I mean survival in general is like the game pitfall, if we want to make some system or hedonistic imperative that is to maximize the human experience, and be the correct way to match our nature for whatever its worth, then we should look at the reality of it all, or nature of it all. Moreover if we want a morally correct society, then what morality is it to get a point where being born poor means a certain pattern of a life and then death in poverty, not to say that’s what it is like, but we live in engineered systems right, so is it not far fetched to think that maybe we have not gotten it right yet?

Generalities about what "conservatives" believe have no place in a debate between you and me, so kindly drop the generalizations.

As for an individual share of stock, I think that we are all aware of how the market works. The value of stock certainly impacts the operations of a company, however. Rations like earnings per share determine whether a company buys back its stock, reducing float, or decides to float additional shares for a given project. Or whether the company is worth more in breakup than the sum of its parts. You are being very simplistic in calling it a "side bet." Market capitalization is, well, market capitalization.

Ah, so you are referring to Billionaires, with a B. All 400 of them in the US. And even then, according to Forbes, only 40% inherited their wealth. Unlike the UK or France, both higher-tax, slightly more socialist countries where a full 2/3 of Billionaires inherited their money. I'm curious as to how this reinforces the argument for income re-distribution.

Hey, I just noticed this:

As a tax lawyer, you are arguing against a simple, flat tax on all income earned. A tax calculation that could be done on a postcard, with no lawyer necessary. Let's just say that I find this ... interesting.

This is pure mystification. You're confusing the value of stock with capitalization. As I say unless it's an IPO, a purchase of stock involves no capital transfered to the company and is not an investment in that sense (which is the sense you challenged me on). Whether a company buys back stock or takes out loans based on its values is irrelevant to your claim that buying stock is an "investment" in a company. It provided no investment capital. Period.



I guess this is the best you can do -- you can't rebut the facts, so you impugn motives. That's a particularly conservative tactic.

I'll take this as an admission that you don't know the origin of the complexity of the IRC (I do) and hence you can't really intelligently discuss it. 99.9% of the IRC involves provisions written by industries more or less to reflect economic reality. It has nothing to do with 99.9% of Americans, most of whom are either W-2 and K-1ed, and don't need to know anything about the IRC to take proper deductions.

Again, what exact problem are you trying to solve with the flat tax besides lowing the rate on billionaires?

So, if no one bought, say, Intel stock for the next 4 or 5 days, what would be the value of Intel, the company? A company with a market cap of over $100 Billion? Would Intel be more or less likely to expend capital and create jobs after a horrific stock plunge?


Impugn motives? You're a freaking tax lawyer arguing against the simplification of the tax code! What would you say to a drug smuggler arguing against a border fence, or the GM of a sports team arguing for public stadium financing? How about the CEO of Halliburton arguing for privatization of the military? It's such an obvious conflict of interest, I thought it was worth noting. For someone who labels everything against his argument as "conservative" you should be a little less thin-skinned.

As someone familiar with the tax code, you know the hilarity of presenting "business" as if it is some corporate entity when 90% of small business income flows through personal returns, and does indeed require tax law compliance and counsel. Same as you recognize the pandering demagoguery of calling six-figure earners "rich" when indeed many of these earners are in fact small businesses. And if phasing out deductions and going with a more straightforward rate (flat or otherwise) is such a bad idea, explain the AMT to us, along with why we should do 2 returns to figure it out.


One, lowering it on millionaires and thousandaires, obviously.
Two, the obvious simplification and reduction of tax shelters, deductions and other non-market based and thus false incentives on which individuals and business base decisions, leading to outcomes less efficient than the free market.

Lastly, are you going to enlighten us (and answer leder's question) as to how the "top 1%" is a non-arbitrary figure?

Your example is like saying if pigs had wings could they fly. If INTEL is making a profit, it has the capital or access to capital for expansion. But of course if it has earnings, then people buy it's stock. So you're hypothetical makes no sense. But regardless, the buying of stock ITSELF has nothing to do with the capitalization of a publicly traded stock. It's a side bet on it's performance. It's amazing you would continue to argue this obvious point.

To put it back in context, rich people "investing" in INTEL stock doesn't produce one job at INTEL. It jsut means some wealthy folk have adjusted their portfolio.



Most people can do their tax calculatino on a postcard now, and as a tax lawyer, I don't calculate taxes. CPAs do. But I don't know any employees with W-2 income who need or use a CPA. Do you?

So again what problem are you trying to solve with this nonsensical argument that working people have trouble filling out a 1040?



Translated: you can't make a coherent argument for a flat tax so you attack tax lawyers. Typical conservative clap trap.

So try to answer the question again: how is the tax code complex for an employee with w-2 income? Think hard and get back with us.



Bingo! we have liftoff. The whole flat tax scam is really about lowering taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Your concern for Paris Hilton is touching, but she'll do alright even with higher taxes.

And of course if you lower taxes on Paris Hilton, you have to raise taxes on working Americans to make up the difference. Isn't that lovely. The real agenda exposed.

So much for the false argument about tax simplification. Tell us again, why is it complex for an employee wiht a W-2 to fill out a 1040 and look at the table in back?

One point worth addressing. Yes, I use a CPA, because like millions of americans part of my income is a "business" even though I don't really own a business. You're crazy if you have any complexity at all to your return and don't use a CPA.

So I'm reading "my" arguments in your post.
- Paris Hilton is a thousandaire?
- Noting that business income, which flows through as personal, makes small business income appear to be "rich people" whom politicians can rail against = "attacking lawyers"
- I and my arguments continue to be "conservative" for some reason. Advocating radical change to tax policy is conservative? By whose definition?
- TurboTax sells millions of units, Jackson-Hewitt and others are doing fine, yet everyone can do their return "on a postcard"


And this kind of comment really isn't what this site is about. You should go find some angry blog to comment on.

- "Makes no sense"
- "Nonsensical"
- "Incoherent"
- "Clap trap"
- "False argument"


I'm cutting out of this debate, and any other where you mischaracterize my argument and issue grand pronouncements, generalizations and name-calling. This type of crap is why I tuned out of this place last year, and it doesn't appear to be getting any better.

Just for the record, not that you even asked since you were too busy building straw men, I'd support a flat tax that wouldn't start until income of $40 or $50K. Or maybe one that eliminated the bottom 50% of earners. Under that level, no one pays significant income tax today anyway. Then we could have a meaningful discussion about how to fix the tax system, without crying wolf about poor "working" people, when they don't pay income tax anyway.

Try to focus. I use a CPA since I have an interest in an LLP and other sources of income that I couldn't possible calculate without a CPA. What does that have to do with your typical W-2 wage earner, who gets a w-2 at the end of the year and puts the numbers in a 1040, and looks at the tax table in back? He'd be crazy to hire a CPA. That's 90% of the population. So your concerns about postcard 1040 are simply not related to the facts.



Too incoherent for me to decipher this. The fact remains a flat tax doesn't solve any problem that 99% of American have in negotiating the IRC, since they don't have to. They just have to put the w-2 figures in the 1040, take a standard deduction and look at the tax table. So you have some other agenda --- like lowering the taxes of poor Paris Hilton. Touching.



I don't blame you for leaving. I've forced you to admit that you're for the flat tax because you want to lower the tax rates of billionaires, something you tried to mystify with talk about "simplification." You've been outed, which is the purpose of debating conservatives -- to expose their real agenda.

Besides it's a bit comical hearing this from someone who has just spent the last several posts attacking me personally for being a lawyer. Your faux highmindedness really isn't washing here. I haven't attacked you personally, since I don't care what you do for a living. What I care about is the speciousness of your arguments, which I have highlighted.



You've already admitted what your really want is to lower Paris Hilton's tax rates, which is touching, but not a very necessary goal. So no need to try to tidy up by pretending you care about the lower brackets. The bottom line is if you lower the rates of the top bracket, you'll have to raise the rates of working Americans and that's OK with flat taxers.

Landru Guide Us,

First off I will remind you that debate must be constructive. Using terms such as "incoherent", "nonsensical" and the like are not constructive and thus are against the Rules. I urge you to review them.

On to the flat tax debate:

Like carlitoswhey, I support a flat tax with an exemption on the first $30,000 of income. No personal deductions, no dependent deductions, no deductions of any kind. Flat tax is probably around 18% in that case.

This removes the "soaking the poor" argument. I don't know of any flat tax advocate that wants to tax everyone's first penny at 20%, tax Social Security benefits, or otherwise soak the poor. By definition, the poor do not have any money to soak.

Your other arguments about our (incorrectly) inferred concern for Paris Hilton or how 40% of the wealthy gain their money through inheritance are red herrings. We are talking income tax here, not wealth accumulation.

1. Do you know what the “Flat Tax” is and are you for or against it, versus what we have now?

I am for it. For full disclosure, I am neither a tax lawyer, a millionaire (or worse!!) or a post card manufacturer.

2. Is any regulation 9 million words long “reasonable and just” for US citizens to have to know and follow?

No it is not reasonable. Of course, it is correct that most ordinary citizens do not need to know the entire tax code. It is also true that these loopholes are there for specific applications and generally do not benefit the common man either. However, a complex tax code benefits nobody except CPAs, tax lawyers, and companies and individuals who employ them to wring the most out of the system.

The current tax code is not simple, however, even for the common man. Americans spend six billion hours per year complying with the tax code. Half of all individuals consult a professional to help with their taxes. During tax season, around a million people are employed in the tax preparation business. It is a $260 billion industry. The collected taxes are just over $1.2 trillion. Doesn't this seem like a waste? LINK

Couldn't these resources be put into something useful?

A flat tax would save the country about $200 billion a year or more. Nothing to sneeze at.

It distracts from it, but doesn't remove it. A flat tax reduces the personal income tax rate on the wealthy. Bottomline. It doesn't alter any deductions or rules relating to business entities (about 90% of the IRC) That's it's purpose (as I forced Ted to admit). So that means the revenue will have to be made up elsewhere or benefits will have to be cut. The revenues will be made up in higher fees and taxes at the state level (if Bush's phoney tax cut for average Americans is any guide). Those taxes are regressive. Thus the effective rate of the taxes on most American will go up, and the effective rate of taxes on Paris Hilton will go down. Great plan.

I suspect the flat tax scheme is your way of saying your for cutting government services and benefits, meaning less capital in the hands of the lower brackets. Same thing.



Wealth accumulation is the result in part of income disparty, which is growing by leaps and bounds. This is way Bush and the conservatives cut INCOME taxes (and estate taxes as far as that goes), but not payroll taxes. Many working Americans pay higher payroll taxes than income taxes. Payrolll taxes are of course partially phased out on the superwealthy. So what does Bush and the conservative party do -- reduce INCOME taxes.

See a pattern forming?



A totally bogus statistic. As I pointed out (as someone who actually works with the IRC) 90% of the IRC is related to corporate and industry matters written and by and for industry. Some are self-serving nonsense, like the depletion allowance. But most in fact reflect economic reality -- like how to deal with inside vs. outside basis in real estate in partnership contexts. They simply cannot be wished away, without making utterly impossible to run a business. And in fact, all the proposed "flat tax" schemes allow business to keep all their deductions (how could you tax gross receipts in a business without every business in America going bankrupt?). What it really does and what it is intended to do is reduce the personal income tax on wealthy individuals. Totally bogus.

You can prove me wrong by showing me what sections of the IRC any flat tax scheme intends to cut. You'll find if you bother to read them, that none of them cut any IRC provision relating to business entities (that's 90% of the Code). But rather they are all designed to cut the personal income tax of the rich, while pretending to take away deductions, which the rich don't get anyway due to AMT.

You've been challenged. Now cite the sections.

For a tax attorney, you are quite sloppy with the numbers.

First off, corporate taxes account for only 18.9% of gross income tax receipts. $230 billion in FY 2004. Link to IRS stats

Of course a tax attorney would know that businesses do not pay taxes on gross income, they pay taxes on net profit. Total receipts by US companies using form 1120 (the widest used form) was over $14 trillion in FY 2003. Their net income on that was around $401 billion. Taxable income (a different number) was around $630 billion. On that, they paid $156 billion in income tax. Link to IRS 1120 business data, FY2003

From that first IRS stats page we see that the IRS helped almost 90 million people with tax questions. Since

we must have millions of idiots running around the States come tax time. 74.8 million tax forms had the "paid tax preparer" blank signed by somebody other than the earner. IRS: Taxpayers Receiving Assistance, Paid and Unpaid, Tax Years 1999-2004 That is up from 69 million in FY1999. That is 54% of all returns. Bunch of morons--they should just look at the tables in the back of the book.

I think these statistics tell a different story from your assertion that the tax code is simple for most Americans.

Now, you may be correct that current flat tax proposals do not address the monstrous business tax code. However, we are not asked in this thread to comment on the plans of others. We are asked our views on the flat tax. Of course, politicians do not want to give away the power that control of the tax code gives them. This was pointed out by Hobbes months ago.

I notice that "Compensation of officers" is a deduction for businesses to the tune of over $221 billion off their taxable income. Loophole #1 that should be closed. I think we can agree on that one.

By the way, your Social Security reference is a red herring. Benefits are capped, why not contributions? Of course, I'm all for scrapping the Social Security scam, I mean, system, but that's another debate.

Talk about sloppy. What does the tax rate of business entities have to do with how much of the code relates to business enties. 90% simply does. I have the code on my desk. Have you ever looked at it?

And of course you've made my point -- you're not for simplifying the tax code for business entities -- they get to keep their deductions, which constitutes the vast bulk of the provisions of the code. Instead you flat taxers plan to take deductions away from working people. How's this for a concept: give working people MORE deductions, not less. Deductions are a GOOD thing and generally reflect econmic reality.



More bogus statistics. First, most questions involve deductions taxpayers WANT, not those they don't want, like the primary residence exclusion. Nobody calls up the IRS asking not to have a deduction. Second, many questions involve procedural matter -- like where do I send the check, or what does this notice mean. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the code. Finally, the number of forms filed by tax preparers I suspect include 1041s, corporate and partnership returns. Your assumption that they are 1040s makes no sense since there aren't 78 million individual W-2 wage earners in the country.



That's because you don't understand them, while I do, as noted above.



Oh please, the complexity of the code results almost completely in the business entity provisions. You haven't addressed that. And of course can't.



What? Compensation has to be a deduction. Compensation of officers is a legitimate business expense and should be deductible to reflect economic reality. The amount of the compensation is the problem, not it's deductibility.



Because the wealthy benefit from a stable society whether they recieve monetary benefits from SS or not.


NOTE: you faiiled to address my challenge and did not address how the flat tax schemes will reduce the complexity of the IRC, which is the question posited in this thread. Instead you cited statistic in an attempt to show the a lot of unidentified taxpayers (whether business entities or W-2 earners you didn't say and presumably don't know) asked a lot of question about their returns.

So here's the challenge again, explain in DETAIL what provisions of the IRC will be simplified if a flat tax is imposed. If you can't do that, you've lost the argument and statistics about IRS phonecalls won't help you mcuh.

You may be a tax lawyer but you clearly flunked economics or never had even one course. First the money received from “Clinton raised taxes on the top 1%” was not the cause of the boom in the 90 (which actually was well under way when he cam into office). You will need to prove this ludicrous statement.

Second the ‘super-wealthy” don’t have billions sitting around in cash. Actually they have it INVESTED – as in stock, bonds, money market (ie US debt) etc. This you may be surprised to learn is GOOD for the economy. On the other hand if we just scarf half that money up (how much would you like to confiscate anyway?) and hand it to the bottom 10 % say they will spend it immediately. This may not be a bad thing unless it’s a lot of money chasing too few goods – then it is bad – we call it inflation, and inflation is a bad thing.

And I also think you railing on the Bush tax cut as unfair is a red herring. Actually it was very FAIR.

In detail explain to the readers how an "investment" in stock creates one job. Please review the posts above where I discussed "investment" in equities, before responding and claiming that somehow, magically, my purchase of an IBM share capitalizes IBM, because it doesn't.

I can explain in detail how recycling capital from the superwealthy to the lower brackets creates jobs and have done so, which explain the Clinton boom, as any unbiased economist knows. But I'll do it again for your benefit.

70% of our GDP is consumer driven. A tax cut for the rich doesn't result in more consumption. Why? Because Bill Gates isn't waiting around for a tax cut before buying his next DVD player. He can buy anything he wants and does, regardless of tax policy.

In contrast, a tax cut to the lower brackets results in more capital in the hands of people who spend the money, increasing consumption and driving GDP (and economic growth) forward. Why? Because they don't have enough earning to meet all their consumption wants. A tax cut results in more spending on their part.

Similarly, GDP is driven by capital investments in business start ups. A tax cut for the rich doesn't result in more capital investment. Why? Because Bill Gates isn't waiting around for a tax cut before investing in a company. He invests all he wants anytime he wants. Instead, the tax cuts goes straight into his portfolio -- i.e., into equities, and equities are a side bet that don't capitalize anything.

In contrast, a tax cut to the lower brackets results in more capital in the hands of people who invest in mom and pop businesses, created jobs and demand. Why? Because they don't have enough earnings to invest all the want. A tax cut results in more funds available for investing.

The same goes for more government services. By picking up expenses to the lower brackets, more government services result in more money in the pockets of the lower brackets, and hence more spending and investment.

This is how it works. The proof is in the pudding. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and the result, the largest economic expansion in US history. No coincidence.

Why do modern conservatives have no faith in small businesses and working people, and think that only the rich make a difference. Says a lot about modern conservatism.

Not just stock but BONDS of course is the capital used for growth and expansion = JOBS.



Obviously you are not just speaking of Mr. Gates are you sir. Plenty of “rich” as defined by liberals alternately as anyone who make 200K a year, fall into a different category don’t they?



You mean “spend” it not “invest” it don’t you and as I have said too much of this is called “inflation” which is a bad thing – get it?



Try no correlation first (unless you can post some). The dream of the socialist – all we have to do is keep sucking the taxes out of the (Bill Gates) and the “lower brackets” will be just fine. Don’t worry – theses rich folks will just keep working their butts of and you can just take and take and take.

The big “tax break for the rich” from Bush was really a FAIR tax break miss-labeled by people like you. What he did was is give people back money as it was taken – thus if you pay 10 times the taxes that you neighbor does then in a “fair” tax reduction you would get back MORE. Most Americans would have no problem with this simply because it is fair. Of course Dems say _ we shaft em on the way up with a graduated tax “rate” and then if there is a reduction we shaft em again, and this screw job is somehow “fair”. This despicable lie is the heart of the “tax breaks for the rich” rant which is just that.




You have no clue of what you are speaking of. Check out Silicon Valley and the venture capital that started most of it. Where did that come from Sir? A Democrat tax break to the bottom 20% (who pay no taxes by the way) – or did it come from those “rich people” risking money on plans and dreams written on the back of napkins.

.

So when you are wrong this is your response. Try again please.


Define “raising taxes on the rich”. Who by the way, as has been posted, already pay plenty. You want what 50-60% tax rate????? How about 80%?



This is your response to my revealing the “tax breaks for the rich” as a big fat LIE. If this is the best you can do we are not really discussing anything.

Have a nice day.

I can't respond to a nonresponsive post. I showed how tax cut on the lower brackets and tax hikes on the top 1% spur growth. You resonded by shedding tears for Gates. Nonresponsive. My post stands unrebutted.


This is an old conservative game. Nobody is rich. It's impossible to define rich. Ok I'll make it easy for you any body with annual income over $1million. We'll created a special tax bracket for them. Is that OK. Are people who make $1M a rich in your reluctant categorization system?



Eh? A reduction in tax rates on billionaires isn't a "tax break for the rich." Only market fundamentalists would make such arguments.

God bless.

Sooooo how on earth did the EVIL Bush create all those jobs and turn the economy around. And he did it with the very same “tax cuts for the rich” you are babbling about. ENLIGHTEN me PLEASE.

The Bush Boom
Conventional demand-side economists keep talking about an economic slowdown. (See today’s WSJ front-page story).

These folks are stubborn if nothing else. They ignore the huge success of supply side tax cuts that lowered the marginal tax rate on capital to the lowest level in history.

Private business investment continues its surge. It remains an explosive engine of growth creating jobs, incomes and consumer spending.
The thought here is very simple: Low tax rates on capital benefit both businesses and consumers. In fact, a combination of record low taxes and record high profits is the key to understanding our current economic boom, which is the greatest story never told.

Just take a look at today’s factory orders report for May. It shows that order backlogs are surging at a 13 percent rate. This is yet another indicator of the business boom.

Moreover, the ADP jobs report hints at a much stronger than expected jobs gain in Friday’s report—368,000 new jobs in June, compared to street consensus of only 160,000. (This is the largest monthly increase in employment since the ADP index was created five years ago.)

Yet, the demand-siders continue their doom and gloom. They’ve predicted four or five growth pauses in the last three years, as the economy shrugged off their pessimism and roared ahead. They have been wrong over and over again. And all signs suggest they will continue to be wrong.

Low tax rates work. Just look at the economy.
http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2.../bush-boom.html

To claim that Bush "turned things around" with a tax cut to Bill Gates is a remarkable assertion. You need to show us the mechanism.

The fact is things haven't "turned" around. Basically the economy is being run on deficit spending, which is a hidden tax on working people and their children. Real income is down for everybody but the superwealthy, poverty up for 5 straight years, more people without health care insurance every year of Bush's reign of tax cut terror, job growth is anemic, biggest trade deficits in history, more kids are in poverty than ever in history, and so on.

I think you've been bamboozled by Bush's uses of average income, which is a typical scam of Bush and his conservative advisors. He used that to talk about an "average" tax cut for Americans of $2,500 Of course that meant that he and his wealthy firends got a tax cut of $130,000 and most working families got $50 in tax cuts (which after taking into consideration hikes in state fees and taxes is in fact a tax increase).

Same with "average" income. People don't live on average income. They live on take home pay. As the joke goes, when Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average income of the drunks goes up $1 million, but their still broke.

But the bottom line is this: Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% and the result was the biggest economic boom in US history, including the creation of 20,000,000 jobs.

Bush cut taxes on the top 1% and the results are pitiful, if not depressing.

I have explained why Clinton tax hike on the superwealthy resulted in growth. You haven't explain how Bush's tax cut for Bill Gates has done anything but resulted in bigger deficits and higher rates for working people

Where have you been for the last 5 years. Low unemployment, millions of jobs created, booming markets. Even the Dems have not tried to say otherwise – they just don’t talk about it.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sbqei0603.pdf

Now now, no personal attacks. I've been right here reading the real facts while you apparently are lost in conservative rhetoric.

Clinton created 20 million jobs. How many did Bush's "boom" create again? BWHAHAHAHAA.

Now let's ennumerate the facts about the Bush "boom":

Biggest deficit in history. Biggest national debt in history. Highest trade deficit in history. Poverty rate increased six years straight. More kids in poverty than any time in history. More people uninsured than any time in history. Income for working people down, down, down.

That's the Bush "boom." It great for billionaires. Bad for Americans.

I can see why you ignored these in the prior post and will probably continue to do so.

But if you can rebut these facts, get back with us.

In the US, the government doesn't create many jobs in the big picture, the private sector does. People like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and the like created more jobs than Bill Clinton could ever dream of. The government's role should be to allow, with certain regulation the private sector to flourish not tax it. Also the senate has a big say in it which even in Clinton's time the senate had a lot of GOP in it. The internet was made tax free under Clinton's watch and it flourished...

Flat Tax seems to be the most fair of all. Even taxes all across the board at a certain percentage rate.. I know why some people probably don't like the idea because it would decrease the amount of tax lawyers needed.

Also the trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing because it doesn't take into account the amount of profit by each country in the transaction. If you buy a car from Japan and they make $200 and sell it for a profit of $1000 who made out in the deal really?

How about some links for the numbers?

Actually – this from 2005 and Vampiel is correct the government does not “make” jabs but allow for economic activity which was heading into the tank as Clinton left office.

The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true. To deny this is not only to blame Bush for a problem he didn't cause, but to deprive him of the credit for fixing it with effective policies — which is exactly why the Left is so eager in this case. Here, however, are the facts:

The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).

The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (during the Clinton administration).



As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/...00405050850.asp



"Our economy created over 97,000 new jobs in February, this plus the upward revisions of 55,000 jobs in the last two months, shows that our economy continues to produce jobs at a steady, sustainable rate. It’s also noteworthy that a significant portion of the new jobs created over the past 12 months have been in service sectors which pay above average wages. Our economy has now seen 42 straight months of job growth for a total of 7.6 million new jobs created since August 2003.”

http://www.dol.gov/

Government actually creates most jobs, if not all. Jobs arise in the context of markets, and markets are created by rules. Every market has rules. There is no "default" free market.

Markets can have rules that benefit the rich, which tends to cause recessions and job loss. Or markets can have rules that benefit average working people, which causes economic growth and more jobs.

The proof's in the pudding -- Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% (recycling capital to the productive elements of society, the working class) and we got 20 million jobs. Bush cut taxes on Paris Hilton, resulting in aenemic growth, biggest deficit in history, biggest national debt, biggest trade deficits, 5 straight years of income reduction and numbers in poverty.

Theories are great. Facts are better.

As to the flat tax, tell us again in detail why its "fairer" for Bill Gate's janitor to pay higher taxes so Bill Gates can pay lower taxes? Somehow the fairness of it all escapes me.




So the economy is better now than under Clinton.

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Name one person that is paying higher taxes now than they were before Bush's tax cuts. The Bush tax cut was across the board. All tax bracket rates were lowered. In addition, the great boon for the working class was the dependent credit (not deduction) which directly put money into just about everyone's pocket. Remember those rebate checks? I sure do.

As far as jobs go, it is fairly hard to add jobs when unemployment is already lower than the historical "full employment" number of 5% unemployment. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

In contrast to the views of some, wages have risen 4.1% in the last year while inflation is at 2.1%. That is a 2% real income increase. Link: CNN Money

To get a true view of the state of the US economy, we should compare it to other first world countries. Unemployment, at a low rate of 4.5% in the US is at 6.2% in the EU. I'm sure the government is creating jobs over there. Financial Times: EU economy is 20 years behind US, says study and Timbro: EU versus USA

You don't seem to know the difference between effective tax rate and income tax rates.

Bush's tax cuts for Paris Hilton reduced the income tax rates, that helped the top 1% bracket (since they make high income), but it raised the effective tax rate for working Americans who don't make high income, but pay other regressive taxes that have gone up due to the cuts in the income tax rates.

In short, you've been had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washingt...acb&ei=5090

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug12.html

So to answer your question, any American who isn't in the top brackets experienced an increase in their effective tax rate, though some are not sophisticated enough to know it.



Some advice when discussing wages. STOP USING AVERAGES THAT INCLUDE MILLIONAIRES

If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average income of the drunks there goes up by $1,000,000. But they are still poor drunks. You don't buy groceries with average income. You buy groceries with take home pay. And take home pay has gone DOWN for working Americans. The averages are scewed by the vast transfer of income to the superwealthy that conservative voodoo economics has produced.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:seGrK...cd=10&gl=us