When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Originally Posted by steven975,Sep 10 2004, 08:32 AM
actually since bush has taken office, the tax system has become even MORE regressive (meaning the poorer are taxed less). The Kerry/Edwards position of the bush tax cuts mainly benefitting the rich is PURE BULLSHIT.
The lowest tax rate was lowered 33%
The highest tax rate was lowered ~3%
I would honestly hope someone paying $50K in taxes gets a greater DOLLAR cut than someone paying $1K. The Kerry/Edwards position just tries to get people into a class warfare position Under Bush's plan, the number of people paying $0 in taxes has skyrocketed (and they are not the "rich" as Kerry/Edwards claim). They are insulting the intelligence of Americans.
That is so true.
And as for trying to tax the 'rich', that's a policy that backfires every time. The truly rich can avoid taxes in many different ways.
Take a look at the UK and Hong Kong in the '60s.
The UK had a 95% tax rate on top earners (hence the Beatles song, Taxman), so the top earners left, or moved their assets to tax havens. The economy tanked.
Hong Kong had a low, flat tax rate (I believe it topped out at 14%, but if not 14%, it was close to it) and you were only taxed on income earned in Hong Kong, not in any other country.
Where does HK stand, even today? #1 country on the Index of Economic Freedom...big surprise, not.
The US in all the way down to #10. Nice going, gummint.
1. Hong Kong 146. Tajikistan
2. Singapore 147. Venezuela
3. New Zealand 148. Iran
4. Luxembourg 149. Uzbekistan
5. Ireland 150. Turkmenistan
6. Estonia 151. Burma
7. United Kingdom 152. Laos
8. Denmark 153. Zimbabwe
9. Switzerland 154. Libya
10. United States 155. North Korea
[QUOTE=steven975,Sep 10 2004, 05:32 AM] actually since bush has taken office, the tax system has become even MORE regressive (meaning the poorer are taxed less).
Ive just grown to accept that everytime I go into my dealership... I'd be there for a minimum of 4 hours... but I did scam MANY free car rentals out of the deal... premium upgrades too... its great to see what you can get with "constructive bitching" as I call it!
Ive just grown to accept that everytime I go into my dealership... I'd be there for a minimum of 4 hours... but I did scam MANY free car rentals out of the deal... premium upgrades too... its great to see what you can get with "constructive bitching" as I call it!
Originally Posted by tritium_pie,Sep 10 2004, 05:51 AM
rather, I'd like to direct your attention to this link.
Sorry for hijacking this thread into a political discussion. But since this is an election year, I try to be informed about the candidates' positions on the issues. Unfortunately, reading this MSNBC article leaves me with the feeling that Kerry cannot leave Vietnam. He is still haunted by his years of service in the Vietnam war and he just cannot stop talking about it (but he does not talk about his protest against that war). He said nothing (in the article) about his economic plans except to "call for jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead". Sure, everyone is in favor of that, but how?
I am sorry, but inspite of the endorsement by the Nobel economists, that article does not show Kerry in very good position.
Economists are political, too...and those Nobel ones are no exception. There are many who still buy into the Keynesian way of things and there are those, like Greenspan, who are Monetarists. Bush has managed inflation well by keeping Greenspan, and has let Congress up spending to keep people in work.
The government spending has created MANY high paying jobs, especially in homeland security. The company I work for is hiring right and left for $50K+ jobs. And, yes, there are way more low-paying jobs created.
Bush has taken a lot of heat for manufacturing job losses. Problem is, it is not his fault. Other nations do it cheaper, period. The country is shifting to a KNOWLEDGE economy, and all those people with little education enjoying $100K salaries are O-V-E-R, whether Kerry is elected or not. Bush stresses training, Kerry suggests ending tax loopholes for sending jobs overseas, WHICH DO NOT EXIST BY THE WAY!!! There are tax deferrals for foreign investment, but not loopholes that let them avoid taxes. Kerry has come up with little or no economic stimulus plan that I can see.
Paying someone $50-100K to work in a factory no longer makes sense, unless it is complex, skilled work. Right-to-work states have actually had many high paying manufacturing jobs CREATED (BMW, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes) in the last few years while union states like Michigan suffer. That is the LABOR UNIONs fault (they are protecting their POCKETS, not worker rights in this case). Union states require workers that are not members to pay agency fees that fatten unions pockets, right-to-work states do not. No company in their right mind sets up shop in a state requiring agency fees (that means every worker will be in the union). The US can still add manufacuting jobs if these agency fees are eliminated, but will Kerry support it...NO! Bush Sr. signed an order eliminating, but the very first thing Clinton did was reinstate them. Many unions are only concerned with cash flow now...and it is hurting the workers they "represent". These unions represent said $50-100K+ workers more than anything else.
I'm not an expert, but I have degrees in economics and finance. I know you cannot force economic expansion, you can only allow it. Kerry's policies are more protectionistic, Bush's free market. I'm with the latter...these Nobel economists the former. It is a difference of opinion.
You and SilverKnight can defend Bush to the death but that still doesn't change the type of person that he is and the roots from which he comes from. POLITICS = LIES. If you want to take all the gobbledegook the establishment media constantly spins discussing inflation, recession, taxes, BULLSHIT, etc. and be a firm believer in it then have at it. How you two support someone that states in his convention speech that he's about "a return to core family values" while at the same time destroying thousands of Iraqi families lives all to increase his family's net worth and continue the oil brigade is beyond me.
No one is saying that Kerry is "that much better" than Bush but he sure is the lesser of two evils.
we got oil from Saddam CHEAP before the war...we just had to give FOOD for it. I think we got like 1/7 from Iraq.
Now, we have to pay MONEY for it. That just blows the whole argument the Iraq war was about oil right out of the water. Yes, I know lots of families died in the war...but you know I believe the number is less than those killed by the "insurgents" and way less than would have died had Saddam still been in power. You said it...lesser of two evils.
I don't see problems with Bush's character. He treats the first lady with respect unlike the last guy. I do disagree with some policies, like drug importation. At least he follows his heart. Kerry follows the fiddle of the labor unions with his protectionist stances. Tariffs do not boost economic activity. They may prolong the weakest parts of our economy but that's it.
taxes, inflation, and recession reported by the media are not bullshit. there are different ways to spin it, yes, but changes in the CPI are statistics. Are you going to say there is 20% inflation and 50% growth or something?
Originally Posted by WhiteS2k,Sep 10 2004, 07:54 AM
Unfortunately, reading this MSNBC article leaves me with the feeling that Kerry cannot leave Vietnam. He is still haunted by his years of service in the Vietnam war and he just cannot stop talking about it (but he does not talk about his protest against that war).
you mean 4 months of service. after HE applied for his 3rd purple heart he was either asked to leave or left by his own accord, depending on who you ask.
09-10-2004, 05:51 AM
Under Bush's plan, the number of people paying $0 in taxes has skyrocketed (and they are not the "rich" as Kerry/Edwards claim). They are insulting the intelligence of Americans.
