Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I blame Carter for all this boycott B.S.

Burger please delete this. You may not recall but we reached an early treaty with Atticus in which we agree not to bash both Carter and Islam in any one post, and he agrees to limit Googled inserts to 2 paragraphs. We don't want to break this treaty.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
. You may not recall but we reached an early treaty .

I never ratified it. I also own all the oceans.

[taxwonk]

From today's Tax Notes, a subscription service for tax lawyers:

The Bush tax cuts have placed a growing federal tax burden on middle-income taxpayers while relieving the tax obligations of the highest-income taxpayers, according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office August 13.

The CBO found that under current law, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers -- those with an average income of over $1 million -- would see their total effective tax rate fall from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent in 2004. The CBO estimates that without the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003, those taxpayers' effective tax rate would have held steady at 33.4 percent. (All figures are based on the extrapolation of 2001 incomes, not actual incomes for the subsequent years.)

At the same time, the group politicians refer to as the middle class -- that is, the 60 percent of Americans with incomes that fall in the middle -- will see its effective tax rate reduced by less than 1 percentage point under the Bush tax cuts. However, the CBO estimates that without those cuts, middle-income taxpayers would have seen their effective rates actually rise by almost a percentage point.

But the report also indicates that those middle-income taxpayers are taking on a higher percentage of the federal tax burden. In 2001 the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers paid 50 percent of the total federal tax bill, a figure that would drop to 47.6 percent in 2004. Under 2000 law, that top 10 percent would have seen its burden drop by less than 1 percentage point from 49.1 to 48.7 percent. Meanwhile, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle would be responsible for 35.2 percent of federal taxes in 2004 with the Bush cuts, but only 34.6 without.

The analysis was requested by the ranking Democratic members on several key congressional committees.

"The Republicans will spin until they're dizzy, but the facts show the single biggest reason for the skyrocketing deficit is the Bush Administration's economic policies," said House Ways and Means ranking minority member Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., in a statement. "The overall effect of Bush tax cuts has been a shifting of the tax burden to middle-class families and to future generations."

Democrats and liberal think tanks have long been claiming the Bush tax cuts were geared toward the rich -- Sen. John F. Kerry. D-Mass., Democratic presidential nominee, has promised to repeal several provisions if elected -- but a report from a nonpartisan congressional office may appear to lend them more weight. The CBO numbers, however, give both parties plenty of room to wiggle.

An e-mail sent by the Bush campaign pointed out the report showed that "under President Bush's tax cuts, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of earners declined by more than 17 percent, while the percentage paid by higher-income earners increased."

If only the percentage of income tax paid is taken into account, not the total share of all federal taxes, then results indeed look more progressive. According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers should cover an estimated 32.3 percent of individual income tax liabilities in 2004 under current law, but would actually have paid only 31.6 percent without the Bush tax cuts.

Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee sent out a release praising the CBO results. "As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts," the statement said. "The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1 percent of income earners pays 31.6 percent of all income taxes, the top 5 percent pays 51.4 percent, the top 10 percent pays 63.5 percent, and the top 20 percent of income earners pays 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes."

But Democrats insist income tax numbers are meaningless and that the more important number is the total effective federal tax rate, which the CBO says "is the total federal taxes that people bear as a percentage of their income." It takes into account payroll taxes, excise taxes on such things as gasoline or alcohol, and the burden of taxes levied against businesses that actually falls on households.

Regardless of who wins the war of numbers, the rising debate over the Bush tax cuts may spoil recent Republican overtures at major tax reform in 2005. (For related coverage, see Doc 2004-16364 [PDF] or 2004 TNT 156-1 .)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's my understanding that he is one of the band of brothers, and 1 of the 6 who has said he was on Kerry's boat and supports him. He apparently also spoke at the convention. This blog suggests that he served on Kerry's boat, but before Kerry got there. I don't have any idea whether this is true or not.

National Review is reporting this story is bogus.

eta: They served together on the same boat for 7 days.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
National Review is reporting this story is bogus.

eta: They served together on the same boat for 7 days.

As I was channel surfing yesterday, I saw that CSPAN was playing a joint appearance of Kerry and O'Neill (?) from the Dick Cavett Show circa 1971 or so. I watched for a few minutes, and it seemed like they were arguing about the same stuff then as they are now -- O'Neill made some comment about serving 18 months instead of Kerry's 4 months, they argued about who served on which boat and what parts of the rivers they patrolled, etc.

One thing I did learn was that the "war crimes" Kerry said at the time that he witnessed was the use of so-called "free-fire zones" and the destruction of Vietnamese huts along the rivers. He said both were violations of the Geneva Conventions. O'Neill said that he never destroyed any huts during his patrol time.

Did anyone see the whole thing?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In 2001 the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers paid 50 percent of the total federal tax bill, a figure that would drop to 47.6 percent in 2004. Under 2000 law, that top 10 percent would have seen its burden drop by less than 1 percentage point from 49.1 to 48.7 percent. Meanwhile, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle would be responsible for 35.2 percent of federal taxes in 2004 with the Bush cuts, but only 34.6 without.
numbers, the rising debate over the Bush

So, boiled down, the complaint is that the top 10% pay 47.6% of all income taxes instead of 48.7%?

And that the middle 60% pay 35.2% instead of 34.6% of all income taxes?

Don't absolute figures count for anything?

Soak the rich indeed.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, boiled down, the complaint is that the top 10% pay 47.6% of all income taxes instead of 48.7%?

And that the middle 60% pay 35.2% instead of 34.6% of all income taxes?

Don't absolute figures count for anything?

Soak the rich indeed.

No. The facts are that the top 1% saw a drop of more than 6% in their effective tax rate, while the middle class saw a drop of less than 1%.

Absolute figures don't count for anything in a progressive system.

At the end of the day, thanks to Bush, the Forbes 400 saw enough tax relief to buy a new yacht or additional summer home, while my tax break was enough to take the family to Six Flags. That's the truth about the Bush tax cuts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. The facts are that the top 1% saw a drop of more than 6% in their effective tax rate, while the middle class saw a drop of less than 1%.

Absolute figures don't count for anything in a progressive system.

At the end of the day, thanks to Bush, the Forbes 400 saw enough tax relief to buy a new yacht or additional summer home, while my tax break was enough to take the family to Six Flags. That's the truth about the Bush tax cuts.

Pardon me if this is oversimplistic, but isn't that as much, if not more, a function of the fact that you make only a small fraction of what the wealthiest Americans make than it is a result of the Bush tax cuts?

A trip to Six Flags for your income level may be comparable to the purchase of a small yacht for Shaq or A-Rod, or a very big yacht for Larry Ellison.

ETA: The progressive system is the problem. The debate would end if we'd do the sensible, just and proper thing and install a flat tax, but that would put too many lawyers and accountants out of business. It would also rob the two useless parties of their favorite issue to exploit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
At the end of the day, thanks to Bush, the Forbes 400 saw enough tax relief to buy a new yacht or additional summer home, while my tax break was enough to take the family to Six Flags. That's the truth about the Bush tax cuts.

And that, my friends, is the beauty of supply side economics. Who do you think built that boat? Who do you think will be paying higher taxes on that parcel than was paid by the previously owner?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, boiled down, the complaint is that the top 10% pay 47.6% of all income taxes instead of 48.7%?

And that the middle 60% pay 35.2% instead of 34.6% of all income taxes?

Don't absolute figures count for anything?

Soak the rich indeed.

I just took a spin through a bunch of think tank sites re: flat taxes. One site included a link to some Senate hearing regarding the impact of such taxes. The writer argued that a flat tax would disproprtionately tax families of four making less then $25k. My wife and I make a lot more than $25k, and we're concerned about whether we can afford two kids! Why in the fuck are my taxes being tied to the concerns of an irresponsible person who has kids despite the fact that he barely has an income above poverty level? Godamnit. Because Cletus and Maybelline or a single mom in the ghetto decides to keep having kids they can't afford, me - the responisble one - has to take it on the chin? What the fuck? The irresponsible should not be used a an example for purposes of deciding tax policy. If we take out of the hypothetical all the loathesome swine (and bringing a child into the world iunder such conditions makes you that - a swine) who reproduce despite clear inability to pay for new mouths, my guess is the flat tax looks a lot more fair.

Its amazing. Genitalia might as well be loaded guns - the effect of their use by the lowest common denominator is probably THE single biggest problem in modern society. Just above the problem with allowing jackasses to together these "studies" for the Senate.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. The facts are that the top 1% saw a drop of more than 6% in their effective tax rate, while the middle class saw a drop of less than 1%.

Absolute figures don't count for anything in a progressive system.

Bullshit. If you taxed the top group 99% and everyone else whatever you needed to make up the deficit, you're telling me that it would not matter one whit if you dropped the top rate to 98%, because it's a move away from progressivity. Bullshit, I say again.

If your beef is that the current tax system is not sufficiently progressive, then fine, but call it that. Don't dress it up as "tax cuts only for the rich." The problem is that the rich are the only ones who pay enough taxes as it is to have cuts of any significance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

If your beef is that the current tax system is not sufficiently progressive, then fine, but call it that. Don't dress it up as "tax cuts only for the rich." The problem is that the rich are the only ones who pay enough taxes as it is to have cuts of any significance.

Absolutely unassailable. Why does the GOP not just come out and say this? Why is the debate this "progressive" v. "supply side" shit?

Even the dimest of voters would understand the statement you wrote above, but I never see it simply stated, not even in the WSJ oped page. Why doesn't Bush just say "Hey, it works like this - we all get the same cut, and the guy making more, well, his cut is naturally bigger." I guess that would sound too fair and logical.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Pardon me if this is oversimplistic, but isn't that as much, if not more, a function of the fact that you make only a small fraction of what the wealthiest Americans make than it is a result of the Bush tax cuts?

A trip to Six Flags for your income level may be comparable to the purchase of a small yacht for Shaq or A-Rod, or a very big yacht for Larry Ellison.

ETA: The progressive system is the problem. The debate would end if we'd do the sensible, just and proper thing and install a flat tax, but that would put too many lawyers and accountants out of business. It would also rob the two useless parties of their favorite issue to exploit.

I'd be in favor of a flat tax, notwithstanding that it would put me out of a job, if were in fact a flat tax. However, the current "flat tax" proposals don't impose any tax on capital gains. That's not flat. The proposal would also provide breaks for income from savings. In other words, it would shift the entire tax burden to wage earners.

A tax that was imposed at say, a 15% rate on all income in excess of, say, $25,000/year. would support current expenditures and reduce the deficit. I would vote for any candidate that supported such a tax as the main plank of em's platform.

But that means, no tax breaks on dividends or capital gains. No more mortgatge interest deduction or deduction for property taxes. No charitable deduction. And a VAT for corporations and other business enterprises not operated as a sole proprietorship or passthrough entity.

However, you're right, Congress would never enact a flat tax that was actually flat.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And that, my friends, is the beauty of supply side economics. Who do you think built that boat? Who do you think will be paying higher taxes on that parcel than was paid by the previously owner?

Supply side economics is bunch of bullshit. The economic doldrums we are in has proven that, if the slump of the early 90's didn't.

The boat was most likely built by Riva, in Italy. and the parcel of real estate could be put to better use than a third home for Donald Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'd be in favor of a flat tax, notwithstanding that it would put me out of a job, if were in fact a flat tax. However, the current "flat tax" proposals don't impose any tax on capital gains. That's not flat. The proposal would also provide breaks for income from savings. In other words, it would shift the entire tax burden to wage earners.

A tax that was imposed at say, a 15% rate on all income in excess of, say, $25,000/year. would support current expenditures and reduce the deficit. I would vote for any candidate that supported such a tax as the main plank of em's platform.

But that means, no tax breaks on dividends or capital gains. No more mortgatge interest deduction or deduction for property taxes. No charitable deduction. And a VAT for corporations and other business enterprises not operated as a sole proprietorship or passthrough entity.

However, you're right, Congress would never enact a flat tax that was actually flat.

I agree with you. Flat is flat. No deductions.

The argument that capital gains tax is a double tax has always struck me as one of the most intellectually dishonest. If you make money on money, that accumulated money is new income, and gets taxed.

Property taxes should also be flat.

Yep, its all academic. Ain't never going to happen, thanks to us.