Bush blinks, raises taxes...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mariner, May 21, 2006.

  1. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    on teenagers with college funds. I'd guess this was an accident, but the Times jumped on it (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/washington/21tax.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print)

    The New York Times
    May 21, 2006
    Despite Pledge, Taxes Increase for Teenagers

    By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
    The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds, despite Mr. Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase.

    Under the new law, teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income will now be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates. Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent.

    The increases, which are retroactive to the first day of the year, are expected to generate nearly $2.2 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which issues the official estimates.

    Over all, the tax bill that Mr. Bush signed Wednesday reduces taxes by $69 billion.

    Mr. Bush pledged in 1999 to veto any bill that raised taxes. In response to a question about the tax increase on teenagers in the new legislation, the White House issued a statement Friday that made no reference to the tax increase, but recounted the tax cuts the administration has sponsored and stated that President Bush had "reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes."

    Challenged on that point, the White House modified its statement 21 minutes later to say that Mr. Bush had "reduced taxes on virtually all people who pay income taxes."


    * * *

    Mariner
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    LMAO. Typical lefty twisted thinking. Deleting a perk for the kiddies to bring them on line with an ALREADY EXISTING tax rate is raising taxes?

    Puh-lease. :bye1:
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Besides these are just spoiled rich kids winning life's lottery anyway. They need to give back to the downtrodden kids who are the have-nots of the world. :rolleyes:

    I dont think there should be any special tax brackets for anyone. Everyone pays the same rate. What should have happened was lowering the parents rate to the kids level but whatever. Its a non-issue.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    guys--the tax code needs massive simplification.

    And I wish redistributive taxation were not a necessity. It does offend a sense of fairness to tax people who earn more at a higher rate. Problem is, if you don't, you get Brazil--a tiny ultra-wealthy class and a large underclass. Redistributive taxation is the only method remaining (now that we don't have tariffs against foreign trade, unionized labor is failing, and we are no longer giving land free to homesteaders) to maintain the existence of a middle class. Already, the top 10% of the population owns 100 times as much "stuff" per capita as the remaining 90% (and as you go up the income ladder, the proportions get more extreme), and Bush's policies are heightening this inequality, to robber-baron levels of the 1920's. I find the idea of an America where most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite much more offensive than the idea of redistributive taxation.

    Still, taking $2 billion from teens saving for college doesn't look so good when you've just given $8 billion to oil and gas companies--and it does constitute a flip-flop from Bush's "no new taxes" read-my-lips,

    Mariner.
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    That's bullshit and you know it. The national income tax wasn't passed until 1914 and the United States had a healthy middle class long before that. Income redistribution is just Socialism's dirty little stepchild. It hurts the economy and lowers incentive for earning your own wealth, further hurting the economy. Then there's the corporate income tax which supposedly taxes those big, evil corporations we hear all about, but, since corporations cannot accumulate wealth, it translates into a 20-30% price increase in everything you buy. Then there's payroll taxes, also designed to take money from the 'rich' and give it to the 'poor.' What it ends up being is money taken from the 'poor' before it gets into their hands and is instead given to the government. This redistributive income tax is not a necessary evil. It's just evil.
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    You're such a filthy liar, you pigdog son of a goatheaded she-mule
     
  7. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    That's mature. ;)
     
  8. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    practice his invective because he's writing a screenplay.

    I'm perfectly aware that the income tax was a 20th century invention. I never implied otherwise. Earlier (and/or in some cases, concurrently), the middle class was maintained by 1. the fact that we weren't populated by aristocrats, so there was a pretty good level playing field to begin with, 2. land grants and plentiful land, which created a level class of farmers, 3. tariffs on foreign goods, which protected American manufacturing from overseas competition, 4. the labor movement, which responded to the capitalist robber barons' exploitation of workers by uniting them, 5. anti-trust legislation, which made it harder for monopoly industries to exploit their workers, 6. worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and other protections.

    This isn't a complete list, but it doesn't change my basic point: the middle class is sadly dependent on some protection, else it ceases to exist. If you have a counterexample--a country where a large middle class predominates, without some form of wealth redistribution, show it to me. Don't forget the massive--and often violent--wealth redistribution that was necessary to move us from aristocratic feudalism to the existence of any middle class at all.

    Mariner.
     
  9. Rico
    Offline

    Rico Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +38
    Absolute, unadulterated, hogwash. The middle clas exists because PEOPLE WORK FOR THEIR WEALTH. Jeez, socialists like yourself just never can seem to get it through their thick, ape like, skulls, that wealth is CREATED. Hard work creates wealth and in turn the classification of a middle class. If I, as anyone else in the "middle class", had to rely on the government we'd be up a creek. I pay out the wazooo in taxes for which I recieve damned little from the government other than defense.

    You cannot support by argument or evidence that the middle class relies on government largesse for its existence. If anything the middle class is well aware that we pay the majority of the tax bill. You are misinformed, misguided, or simply ignorant. PERIOD!
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Duh!
    Didn't 'create' farmers, rather provided incentives for them to move 'west', providing food for not only US industrialization, but most of the West in the larger sense. This was not to 'redistribute wealth' as much as to fulfill 'Manifest Destiny,' as it cut off any hope of foreign nations staking a claim, not to mention making it impossible for Native Americans to maintain their lifestyle. Not saying it was 'pretty' but very effective.
    Considering the age of the US industries at the times that you are speaking, tariffs were not all that insufferable for other, more established nations. Today, with a few bad apple exceptions, we are the least restrictive market on earth.
    Huh, they have never been a significant force in the US, even in their hayday.
     

Share This Page