Bush tax package guts middle class

[pritchke]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by harleyquinn: I agree with you Timber. I saw a news report on a local news a few years ago when they were talking about a universal health care system, and that to implement it, they would more than likely have to raise taxes. In this news report they spoke with people in Canada, and each and every one of them said that they're ok with paying the GST because they can see all that those dollars are going for. I seriously think that if we implemented something similar here and the used that money for universal health care, better schools, better social security, or variety of other services, where it's easy for people to see where that money is going for, than most people won't be complaining about it. That feeling is just my opinion, however, since it hasn't actually been done, but I think it's accurate. Last year when NY was cutting the libraries' budgets and slashing the money to the schools and county services, the majority of the residents in our county signed a petition given to the County Executive saying that they would accept a tax increase if it meant that the libraries, schools, and services could maintain their current budgets. Unfortunately, he decided to do what he wanted rather than listen to what the people he's supposed to represent wanted.

Harley, there are seriously bad flaws in Canada's universal "free" health care. I have in the past worked closely with a LOT of Canadian Military...and have personally seen a large amout of Canadians comng to the USA for treatmetn due to long wait periods in Canada. You also have to remember..the entire population of Canada would only make two medium large sized cities here in the States. Roghly 30 million or so.

Im not trying to knock Canada or Canadians, but I do know that thier "Free Health care" has some serious problems care wise and is also having financial problems as well. Can you show me even on government program that efficiently uses your tax dollars? (I don't think so) I don't think a government controlled health cAre system would do any better. Standard of care would go down, and no one would get good care....except those who can afford to leave thecountry and go elsewhere.

The truth is, that the US government already collects more than enough money to pay for everything currently on the plate.....if it would use the funds efficiently and seriously go after those who fraudulently and wastefully use the funds. The latest figures I read show that it is estimated that from 5 to 10% of education funding is lost off the top to waste, fraud and abuse...and that isn't counting stuff at lower levels. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] err yeah Im ranting *sigh* I'll shut up now. [/QUOTE]Yes, there are flaws with our Health Care System. The biggest one is no one is held accountable for spending so there ends up being much waste. If there was some accountability and less bureaucracy the system would be more efficient. If the health care were two-tier a private/public which offered the same services with regards to health care, not hospitality/comfort than the line ups can be reduced because those who really can afford it could go to the private hospital so they would not have to wait reducing lines in the public. However I believe everyone has a right to health care.

PS. I read lots of right wing sources, it is important to know as much about the opposing team as possible.

[ 05-29-2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Sir Taliesin]

It's pretty obvious that article is entirely flawed has it's been pointed out in prevoius post.

They've been trying to pass an income tax here in the State of Tennessee for the last three years. It came with in 2 votes of passing this last year, but failed. Our new Governor has vowed no more push for an income tax until at least the next term. He actually came in and tried something new for a change. He cut spending across the board by 9.5 percent! Quite novel in the world of politics in this day and age. I might add that he is a DEMOCRAT and he got my vote in the last election. The prevouis governor was a REPUBLICAN, who pushed for the State Income tax. He was roundly critized through out the state for that too. I don't think we've had a more unpopular Governor since Parson Brownlow, during Reconstruction.

BTW, that line about the death of the middle class is a bunch of hooey! As a family with three children, we'll be getting back around $900 to put back into the economy and that's what we plan to do with it! We're going to use it for Vacation!!!

Originally posted by pritchke: Yes, there are flaws with our Health Care System. The biggest one is no one is held accountable for spending so there ends up being much waste. If there was some accountability and less bureaucracy the system would be more efficient. If the health care were two-tier a private/public which offered the same services with regards to health care, not hospitality/comfort than the line ups can be reduced because those who really can afford it could go to the private hospital so they would not have to wait reducing lines in the public. However I believe everyone has a right to health care. PS. I read lots of right wing sources, it is important to know as much about the opposing team as possible.

One universal truism (in my book) is that governments can never efficiently do anything...all they are good at is creating red tape and comlicating things. They do fairly well at defense and that kindo f thing, but when it comes to manageing money that they aren't held accountable for...forget it.

One of our differences is that I don't believe people deserve anything but an equal chance to succeed free of discrimination. If you want health care ...earn it..go out get a job and pay for it. Now if the nation is successful and rich enough it has various forms of wealth redistribution to help those who are truely unfortunate and have no way to help themselves. But government was not (at least here) intended to be a persons provider of health care or lunch money. Truth be told I really don't begrudge my taxes as much as I sometime let on here, they do go some times to help those in need...but I believe that the vast majority of able bodied and mentally sound people should pay their own way and don't "Deserve" things or have "entitlement" to anything.

P.S. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for reading more than one sides articles (even if you don't agree) it is good to at least try to see both sides.


P.P.S. As Sir T. points out...cutting spending should be the first second and third steps taken in taking care of deficits.

[ 05-29-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

If the middle class is dead..I better start preparing my funeral....

[Azred]

You will never "gut" or "kill" the middle class--there are too many of them and a majority of the economy is generated by the middle class.

Most people would probably rather pay a flat rate for anything and everything, much like a sales tax or VAT. Even at 15%, that is still considerably less than the 25% (or higher) that many people pay in income tax (on top of the sales tax that already exists).

A tax cut that puts money into the pocket of middle-class people is good, because normally middle-class people have a higher propensity to spend when they get some extra money. Of course, the Federal government must cut spending or the tax cut will only put money into the lower levels of government (via sales tax). Besides, without lowering interest rates to stimulate business spending/investing, a tax cut to citizens will only result in a brief spurt of spending, but it won't do enough to jump-start corporate expansion and hiring. (needless to say, I do disagree with the Bush Administration on this point)

Joan Veon...a "certified financial planner" and President of her own investment firm. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I highly doubt she is a "turnip" in the middle class, based on my own personal experiences with financial planners (yes, I am/have been one myself). If she is so vehemently against the tax cut, then she can send her rebate to me. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

The frightful rub is that a VAT would likely SUPPLEMENT, not SUPPLANT, the income tax.

[wellard]

Originally posted by MagiK: One of our differences is that I don't believe people deserve anything but an equal chance to succeed free of discrimination. If you want health care ...earn it..go out get a job and pay for it. P.P.S. As Sir T. points out...cutting spending should be the first second and third steps taken in taking care of deficits.

So MagiK where would you draw the line on who is eligible for free health care? children still at school, university? when is someone old enough for free care 60, 70, more? pregnant women? what if they don't know they are pregnant yet, better be safe and give out free check ups to all women 15 to 45. How can you draw lines in the sand over this issue?

If you have free health care it has to be universal IMO

but your last comments on cutting spending is spot on [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The frightful rub is that a VAT would likely SUPPLEMENT, not SUPPLANT, the income tax.

I am all for supplanting some of the income tax base and shifting aways from an "earner pays" to a "user pays" basis. One of the things that stifles success is prohibitive upper tax ranges on people trying to break into the upper income brackets. It also generates a massive industry in tax avoidace accounting. The good thing about a broad based consumption tax should be less fraud and less fraud industry.

But if the tax is supplementing income tax - well that sux big time

[the sauceman]

Like many others have said here, this article (If you can call it one, its more like propaganda) is entirely uncredible. While I think the author is a complete idiot, and raving idiot at that, I in a way agree with the basic premise.
Bush is trying to stimulate the economy by throwing money at the people with lots of it, while continuing to increase spending. That has absolutely no logic to it at all, Bush is (REMEMBER: This is my opinion, so dont hatemail me. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) a fool who only knows how to solve things by fighting them.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by Davros:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb] One of the things that stifles success is prohibitive upper tax ranges on people trying to break into the upper income brackets. It also generates a massive industry in tax avoidace accounting. The good thing about a broad based consumption tax should be less fraud and less fraud industry.

Well, the "fraud" industry is a fair statement. Though, if you can get a deduction and don't take it, isn't it your own failing?

Anyway, the misconception with the income tax that the upper tax ranges keep people from breaking in is wrong. Say you are in the 15% bracket and want a new job that will put you in the 20% bracket. Well, you only pay 20% on the amount ABOVE the 15% cutoff level. On the first dollars, then, everyone pays the same rate. You are only charged the higher rate on your dollars that exceed the lower cutoff.

Hope I didn't mistake your meaning with the comment.