09-11-2004 12:41									#121
	Suffering from ads?

quote: There is already an exemption that enitrely eliminates your incokme tax if you spam

i dont know, you tell me.

	09-11-2004 12:43									#122
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo: I'm pissed that they never said anything about the fact that the taxes also meant that non earned income would be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. this is in fact the first time I've seen that mentioned.

Democrats made a big deal out of this, and discussed all the details. Especially Edwards, who harped on it endlessly. He specifically talked about investment income being taxed at a lower rate than earned income, and he used the guy-by-the-swimming-pool example to illustrate the point.

I get my news from PBS's News Hour and from major newspapers (which I read online) like Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. So I knew about this issue a year ago.

Do you get your news from Fox? If so, that might explain why this issue is new to you.

	09-11-2004 12:47									#123
	Suffering from ads?

I avoid FOX. I get my day to day news from a local newspaper and CNN (their website mostly but also some of their TV) and checking out links on Poly. 2003 was a busy year I may have missed the news when it was still new but I'm appalled that it wasn't clear in the election coverage which hardly ever addressed dividend income.

Last edited by Geronimo on 09-11-2004 at 12:52

	09-11-2004 12:51									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia i dont know, you tell me.

why did you ask...

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia and i wasnt aware that spammers paid taxes - can you show me that part? maybe i missed that too...

If you didn't have some reason to assume that spammers are excluded from income taxes?

I had just asked if you would support a tax break that you could only claim if you were a proven spammer and you responded by suggesting that you would be surprised to learn that spammers would be expected to pay income taxes. Why did you ask me to 'show that spammers pay taxes' if you didn't suspect they already enjoy some special excemption from paying taxes?

	09-11-2004 12:57									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I had just asked if you would support a tax break that you could only claim if you were a proven spammer and you responded by suggesting that you would be surprised to learn that spammers would be expected to pay income taxes. Why did you ask me to 'show that spammers pay taxes' if you didn't suspect they already enjoy some special excemption from paying taxes?

ah, but you confused me. i thought you meant there was a special spammer tax, not a income tax on spammers. in which case i would support a cut in spammers income tax - the first step to lower or no taxes.

	09-11-2004 13:10									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia ah, but you confused me. i thought you meant there was a special spammer tax, not a income tax on spammers. in which case i would support a cut in spammers income tax - the first step to lower or no taxes.

Even if they could only get the cut by being spammers? IE they would pay less taxes than non spammers? if so why? What will it accomplish? It will just make the deficit larger and make enacting fair tax cuts even harder than it was before. Tax cuts aren't all equally easy to enact. The farther the taxes get cut the harder it becomes to make additional tax cuts of any kind. If we want to reduce the tax load we need to insist that it be done correctly the whole way or it will just be harder if not impossible to get it done correctly later.

	09-11-2004 13:15									#127
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by AnnC Democrats made a big deal out of this, and discussed all the details. Especially Edwards, who harped on it endlessly. He specifically talked about investment income being taxed at a lower rate than earned income, and he used the guy-by-the-swimming-pool example to illustrate the point. I get my news from PBS's News Hour and from major newspapers (which I read online) like Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. So I knew about this issue a year ago. Do you get your news from Fox? If so, that might explain why this issue is new to you.

I should also point out that even Imran wasn't initially aware that people who only obtain income from dividends would pay less taxes than people earning income only through their salary, and Imran went as far as voting for Kerry. I still maintain that the Dems did a piss poor job of presenting this issue which would have easily fit into any of the zillions of campaign ads they aired here none one of which made mention of this.

	09-11-2004 13:45									#128
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo This tax plan is such total bullshit. The idea of making it possible for someone to be taxed less for earning income by not working than they would be taxed for earning the income through working is so wrong and so infuriating it would have had me campaigning hard against every congressman who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. I dislike tax brackets and 'progressive' taxation because it is unfair and therefore unjust. However if there is anything worse than 'progressive' taxation it is reverse progressive taxation. It is truly a monstrous anti utilitarian and anti meritocracy policy if someone is rewarded for doing nothing and punished for earning income. This is badly badly Fvcked up. It bothers me almost as much that in all the crap I read published by those campaigning against Bush I don't remember anybody spelling out this awful policy.

The fight against inflation, started in the US in the 80s and extended successfully to the whole world, has resulted in building an economy devoted to paying interests to people doing nothing. Ever since actual interests have been consistently positive (around 2 to 3 percent), and the taxation of interests has traditionally been a flat rate. Before the 80s, the actual interest rates were generally negative, which induced people to invest in more productive areas. After 1980, the load represented by the actual interests on the economy rendered the expected profitability of new investment projects discouraging. The 15% yield demanded by shareholders cannot be granted on the long term. We are now in a situation where there is no better long term investment that the public debt with a 4.5% interest and a flat taxation rate.

Although this 1980 decision was backed up with very serious economical arguments, we are obliged to ask the usual question : were there some people having a special interest in a world with positive actual interest rate? The answer is yes, people with big cash balances the investment policy of whom would give the highest priority to security. Amongst those people I cant help but think that active and retired criminals are included.

The world economy deliberately organised to provide a no-risk lowly taxed return to criminals is a quite shocking idea, but it describes accurately the world as it is now.

	09-11-2004 14:11									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It will just make the deficit larger and make enacting fair tax cuts even harder than it was before.

deficts are not a function of inflow, its the result of too much outflow. by this logic, you are saying that rich people will not go bankrupt.

quote: ax cuts aren't all equally easy to enact. The farther the taxes get cut the harder it becomes to make additional tax cuts of any kind

thats why you need leadership and/or a dictatorship.

	09-11-2004 14:34									#130
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia deficts are not a function of inflow, its the result of too much outflow.

So if your car runs out of gas, you would say it has nothing to do with not filling the tank?

	09-11-2004 14:59									#131
	Remove this text

quote: So if your car runs out of gas, you would say it has nothing to do with not filling the tank?

if your car runs out of gas, i would say that you used more gas than you had available. doesnt matter how full the tank is, if you go on a trip where you put more miles in than there are gallons of gas, then you will eventually run out, no matter how much you had in there originally.

	09-11-2004 15:20									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: NRA for gun control?

quote: NRA supports “gun control” that is designed to prohibit felons from buying and possessing firearms as long as those laws do not also infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. NRA supports enforcement efforts that target the violent law-breaker, and with that support programs such as Project Exile have been put in place in numerous cities and states.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/D...aspx?Section=69

	09-11-2004 16:00									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

What next? John Paul II in favour of abortions? Cheney in favour of 120% marginal corprorate taxes?

	09-11-2004 16:14									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yeah, but the Prez is thinking about that most regressive of all taxes, a national sales tax, which would basically be a tax on people too poor to have internet access.

What of an exemption for necessities such as food and clothing, like most state sales taxes have? That's virtually all the poorest of the poor pay for, while the rich would pay extravagant sales taxes on big-screen TV's, yachts, etc. Doesn't sound very regressive to me.

	09-11-2004 16:50									#135
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by AnnC That's a very good example - which illustrates the degree to which Bush's 2003 tax cut was a giveaway to the wealthy. Teresa Heinz-Kerry doesn't work for wages, she derives all her income from stocks and bonds. Bush reduced the capital gains rate to 15% and applied it to stock dividends. So for example, if Teresa gets 5/6 of her income from dividends and 1/6 from tax-free municipal bonds then her tax rate nets out at 12.5%. Before Bush's tax cuts, Teresa paid the top marginal rate of 39.6% on her dividend income. So as you can see, people who live off their investments now pay much lower taxes than people who earn wages/salaries - and that's the way Bush wants it.

I'd be interested in seeing just how much she actually paid in comparison to how much she would have paid if she didn't employ legions of tax attorneys and accountants to reduce her tax burden. A well-designed flat tax or even a national sales tax would be fairer than the current system and a lot cheaper for individuals and businesses to deal with.

	09-11-2004 17:01									#136
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Ok, so then the upper class will be paying unreasonably too low in taxes.

Can you explain how you drew that conclusion from the post you quoted?

	09-11-2004 17:43									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 What of an exemption for necessities such as food and clothing, like most state sales taxes have? That's virtually all the poorest of the poor pay for, while the rich would pay extravagant sales taxes on big-screen TV's, yachts, etc. Doesn't sound very regressive to me.

You make the mistake of assuming that there's an exemption for necessities built into American sales taxes. In most cases no such exemptions exist (at least not where I've lived).

	09-11-2004 17:44									#138
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I'm pissed that they never said anything about the fact that the taxes also meant that non earned income would be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. this is in fact the first time I've seen that mentioned.

Not exactly true. If a corporation earns income and is taxed at 20%, then 100,000 in income would be 80,000 in after tax income. If it then distributes this income to its owners (stockholders) and they are then taxed 15% on this 80,000 then they will have 68,000. This is an effective tax rate of 32%.

The tax table shows that 100,000 in income is taxed at 28%.

This means that the same 100,000 in income is still taxed at a higher level for the investor than for the wage earner. Part of the "tax" on the investor is receiving a lower dividend because the money has already been taxed once by the government. This is the "double taxation" that we have been talking about and Bush's plan just made it more fair.

To spin it into saying the investor pays less than the wage earner is to simply not understand the truth.

	09-11-2004 18:01									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The problem is that conservatives have been using the "taxed twice" justification to lower both the taxes of investers AND corporations and adding in a lot more loophopes to both taxes. If they wanted to be consistent they'd just scrap one of those forms of taxation entirely (getting rid of corporate taxes would make more sense but would play worse politically), but I suspect that they would rather use the "taxed twice" justification to keep on lowering both types of taxes rather than actually solve the supposed problem and change the tax code so that said income is only taxed once.

	09-11-2004 18:02									#140
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boshko You make the mistake of assuming that there's an exemption for necessities built into American sales taxes. In most cases no such exemptions exist (at least not where I've lived).

What assumption? I'm talking about the way a national sales tax should be, not what it will be.

Still, the only way it'd ever be politically feasible is if such exemptions (as well as increased rates on certain obvious luxuries) existed. If they would, it seems no more regressive than the current system.

	09-11-2004 18:20									#141
	Got spare money?

No, I was talking about this:

quote: What of an exemption for necessities such as food and clothing, like most state sales taxes have?

I don't think I've ever seen that kind of exemption in the state sales tax of any American state I've ever been to.

	09-11-2004 18:23									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Not exactly true. If a corporation earns income and is taxed at 20%, then 100,000 in income would be 80,000 in after tax income. If it then distributes this income to its owners (stockholders) and they are then taxed 15% on this 80,000 then they will have 68,000. This is an effective tax rate of 32%. The tax table shows that 100,000 in income is taxed at 28%. This means that the same 100,000 in income is still taxed at a higher level for the investor than for the wage earner. Part of the "tax" on the investor is receiving a lower dividend because the money has already been taxed once by the government. This is the "double taxation" that we have been talking about and Bush's plan just made it more fair. To spin it into saying the investor pays less than the wage earner is to simply not understand the truth.

You have forgotten that if a person was earning the $100,000 then not only would the company's profit then be zero (removing the corporate tax as you note) but an additional employer's payroll tax would be introduced.

I don't know the rate, but I think its what, 10% or so? That makes personal income tax a higher cost than the 28% you have listed by not a negligible degree.

	09-11-2004 18:44									#143
	Put an end to popups!

To AnnC for making by far the most sense in this thread, and being the most concise.

I have no proble of switching form an income tax system to a consumption tax system- but obviously, a progressive one- for example, I would tax the buying of stocks or bonds.

	09-11-2004 19:26									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap To AnnC for making by far the most sense in this thread, and being the most concise. I have no proble of switching form an income tax system to a consumption tax system- but obviously, a progressive one- for example, I would tax the buying of stocks or bonds.

Have to agree that the post did seem to make sense and was concise.

It was, unfortunately, only part of the picture and therefore incorrect.

Nice slant on the issue though GePap.

	09-11-2004 19:59									#145
	Put an end to popups!

So let's clarify:

Current taxation is unfair because high income earners pay both a higher percentage of their income and a greater net amount in taxes.

Introducing a flat tax with certain minimum starting point is more fair because high income earners pay both a higher percentage of their income and a greater net amount in taxes.

Sounds about right.

	09-11-2004 20:27									#146
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

My income is taxed twice. Once when I earn it, once when I spend it. Whah, whah, whah.

	09-11-2004 20:31									#147
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So how will the credits and exemptions be doled out? Fat check at the start of each year? Which means that the low income folks will still have to eek out an existence for that first year it is enacted?

That’s harsh.

But, IF it happens, I can see some upsides, too. Do not downplay the ingenuity of the American people.

One thing it will do is that savings/investment rates will increase. Nobody will spend more than is absolutely necessary in the low to mid income brackets. Another is that people will become net producers. Lots more home gardens, lots of informal community associations and barter going on behind the scenes. If it passes, I know that’s what I’ll be doing. I got a big back yard. Could easily set up a mini-orchard and a garden big enough to provide most of the veggies I get at the local Kroger right now. End result will be that I’ll have more money in my pocket (federal tax bite goes away, and I get it back in my paycheck), healthier, home-grown foods, and I have more money to invest in dividend-paying financial instruments, which are taxed at a lower rate!

-=Vel=-

	09-11-2004 20:31									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boshko No, I was talking about this: quote: What of an exemption for necessities such as food and clothing, like most state sales taxes have? I don't think I've ever seen that kind of exemption in the state sales tax of any American state I've ever been to.

Well it's the case in Minnesota; replace "most" with "some" if you wish. Still nobody's addressed the point that a sales tax with such exemptions would indeed be no more regressive than our current tax code.

	09-11-2004 20:40									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara And Bush's plan is now law.

Only for a few years... which is why Bush is pushing for his cuts to be permanent. It was originally for 5 years, I think, just for recovery purposes.

	09-11-2004 20:40									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Well it's the case in Minnesota; replace "most" with "some" if you wish. Still nobody's addressed the point that a sales tax with such exemptions would indeed be no more regressive than our current tax code.

It's very simple. Sales taxes takes a larger percentage of the money of the poor than it does the money of the rich. Thus is is a regressive tax. Even if you exempt necessities, people still have to buy a lot of things that aren't food.