Tax cuts for the Rich

“YOUR ON!!






FREEEEEEEE BEEEARRRRR!



can I have mine NOW!?! :)”

“you'll have to pay the beer tax first....


funny how all the libs ran away when i post irrefutable evidence.


savage, lmao!

prosecuter, you are correct, spending is out of controll, on both sides...”

“......a leee-git question:

Part Duex -

""i have shown over and over how the poorest 50% don't pay any taxes so how do you give them a tax break?............"


OR


"The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!.........."



Which IS it!?!

Also, don't "they" pay tax on purchases at stores, or is that some Gubment program I'm not aware of?




Strut, we both know that the cut the "top 1%" got adds up to more money than what you and I got. Let's not try to mislead anyone here.

Here's a good example.

I went into my bosses office the other day to dicuss pay. He told me that there was no money for a raise, we all got 1% and that's it.

He makes at least $110,000, so his raise was $1,100.

I make 30,000. My raise was 300.00.


His gross amount is almost 4 times mine.

Tell me that's fair?"
laqtis
05:27:04 PM
03/12/04”

“What if you got a raise? should you be the only one, just because you're poorer? You get paid what yu are worth, so does he. If he's not worth it, he won't get the raise. It's fair because he will get paid what the market is willing to pay him. It's like if you swing at a ball in the dirt, it's a bad pitch but still a strike. How is it fair for you to decide what a company pays it's employees?

If you tax the boss more, he willl buy less goods and services that poorer people provide. This hurts the poor.


You are saying that the gubment should decide who deserves to pay more. THe rich already pay more.


the "which is it" question is stupid. when i say they pay nothing, it's next to nothing so quit quibbling. 3% is minute...it's clear i'm not trying to mislead.”

“"the "which is it" question is stupid. when i say they pay nothing, it's next to nothing so quit quibbling. 3% is minute...it's clear i'm not trying to mislead........"



Oh, so this time, you made a mistake and we're supposed to read between the lines in what you post.

OK I got it.

So when you get busted on a popst, you can back track and it's OK....hmmmmm......better remember that the next time you try to "bust" someone.

Your creditiblity sinks!”

“The Bush campaign put up a campaign ad accusing Kerry of proposing a tax increase because of its liberal interpretation of the cost for one of Kerry's programs.

The administration then figured that the money had to come from somewhere. It must be a tax increase. Hence the ad.

Okay. Let's follow this logic. Bush's budget for the coming year contains 500 billion in deficit spending. According to the same logic they used against Kerry, Bush's budget contains 500 billion in tax increases.

And I can't argue with the logic. Eventually, someone will pay - most likely in higher taxes.

Let's just "out" Bush as a typical Northeastern liberal Republican. He wants to spend lots now with promises of higher taxes later.”

“"Why do you hate America?"

I do believe this is bacpac's line. It's a hypocritical statement any way you look at it. If one of the conservatives said this you'd be all all over them for saying it.

You invalidate yourself Violin...”

“"If he's not worth it, he won't get the raise..........."

Bull#&%!$. In my field, dood gets a raise if he has four dumps a day or two.

Now THAT'S fair.”

“Lagtis, a common trick in rhetoric is to SLIGHTLY exagerate ones claim. The other side can't resist CORRECTING the mistake, but unwittingly agrees to the underlying propostion, thereby winning the argument.

For example in the latest televison ads, Bush claims Kerry wants to raise taxes by 900 billion. Kerry responsed that he never explicitly called for a $900 billion tax hike, but Republicans are basing their case on incomplete arithmetic in his own policies. The news reports that the "Kerry's plan to reduce health care costs would cost NEARLY $900 billion, according to a study by Emory University economic professor Kenneth Thorpe, who has been cited by Kerry's campaign and other Democrats as an authoritative source." (Emphasis supplied) The public walks away with the knowledge that Bush slightly overstated the claim, but that Kerry wants to raise their taxes by ALMOST 900 billion. Guess who wins the argument on election day?

Lagtis, thanks for conceding the 3%. Based upon YOUR arithmatic, Statdewd wins the argument. Good job.”

“ahhh, that was a tounge....in...cheek...comment.

I didn't concede anything.

Strat goes back and "revises" his arguement when an inconsistantcy is found and this means I concided something?

I pointed out that the bottom 50% he claimed paid NO taxes, in fact pay taxes.”

“ok, i concede it's really the bottom 49.6%


oooh, you really burned me on that one man....[eyeroll]”

“So strat, you would agree that making tax cuts for the botton 50% of TAXPAYERS would help to better stimulate the economy?”

“I don't think he would. He enjoys getting trickled on too much......”

“you can't cut their taxes cuz they don't pay any(obstensivily)


DEERRRRRRRRRR”

“Did I say citizens? Did I say people of the lowest 50% of incomes?

I said lowest 50% of taxpayers, and even capitalized it to make sure you could understand it. I sure hope you manage to undertstand it this time.”

“How about if we made the first 30 grand of every person's yearly income tax-free?”

“according to the IRS:
if you make:......313,469 you're in the top 1%......128,336, top 5%......92,144, top 10%......55,225, top 25%......27,682 you are in the top 50% of wage earners in adjusted growth income.

it may be that way already, i'm not sure but the point is taxes are bad. the rich pay alot already. they pay a higher percentage already. if you kill the rich man, you kill freedom. we have to have some taxes but the less we have the more wealth that be created. quit trying trick questions. the government is frought with waste, fraud, and abuse. the more they take, the more they waste. people, wage earners...even rich ones, are the best spenders of money. a free market is the best way to distribute money. a bloated beurocracy only feeds itself first and the poor get what's leftover. you might as well be working for the government because that is what you are fighting for. not the little guy, the biggest guy of all. government doesn't have the right to take people's money. it only has what power we give it. you want to give it more power, make it bigger, make it the decision maker of who gets to keep what. it's not the way it's supposed to work. the politics of envy are destructive and devisive. class wartfare is wrong to the core. you don't see immigrants from asia complaining about it. they get to work and don't look back. creating a dependant class is the only way for dems to survive. poor people should see that if they were better off, they wouldn't need dems anymore. i see it. i am poor and i dont believe i have a right to anyone elses money, unless i earn it. we are all americans and life's lottery is the same game we all play. you have the power to change your lot....government does not. don't like your place in the world? not my fault, not rich people's fault, not the tax code's fault. if you spent all that energy on bettering yourself, you'd be alot less bitter and much more constructive.

i'm out...gonna go make a little dough...cashola, mean green....so you can take it and give it to someone more deserving...

asta-la-pasta”

“Hopefully, while you're out, you can find someone to explain the difference between the bottom 50% of wage earners and the bottom 50% of taxpayers.”

“Deficit Study Disputes Role of Economy
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS NY Times

WASHINGTON, March 15 — When President Bush and his advisers talk about the widening federal budget deficit, they usually place part of the blame on economic shocks ranging from the recession of 2001 to the terrorist attacks that year.

But a report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year.

Next year, the agency predicted, faster economic growth will actually increase tax revenues even as the deficit remains at a relatively high level of $374 billion.

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

Administration officials do not dispute the basic thrust of the agency's estimate, but they still say that faster growth and spending restraints can reduce the deficit in five years.

Though the economy is growing at more than 4 percent a year, administration officials continue to attribute much of the budget deficit to economic problems beyond their control. "Large and unwelcome as they are, the deficits are understandable," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said in a speech last week. "They are understandable in the sense that the president inherited a recession and an economy greatly weakened by the excesses of the late 90's."

President Bush and his advisers almost routinely cite a list of shocks to the economy, from a recession that began as Mr. Bush took office to the terrorist attacks and the loss of investor confidence after a series of corporate scandals.

Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, summed up the burdens when he presented Mr. Bush's latest budget proposal and predicted a deficit of $521 billion for this year. "Like America itself, the federal budget has faced extraordinary challenges in recent years," he said, citing "a stock market collapse that began in early 2000; a recession that was fully under way in early 2001; revelation of corporate scandals years in the making; and, of course, the Sept. 11 attacks and ensuing war on terror."

The Congressional report, though, concludes that the "cyclical" problems of slower growth are a tiny part of the overall budget problem. The Congressional agency estimated that slower growth reduced tax revenues by $53 billion in 2002, accounting for a third of the budget deficit that year. In 2003, the agency estimated that subpar growth cut tax revenues by $68 billion. The overall budget deficit in 2002 swelled to $375 billion as a result of spending on the Iraq war and Mr. Bush's tax cuts.

But this year, with the economy expanding, the Congressional agency predicted that lingering weakness would drain only $30 billion in tax revenues while the deficit hits $477 billion, less than the White House had forecast, but still a record.

Critics of the Bush administration said the new report meant that budget problems were increasingly the result of legislative changes, from higher military spending to deeper tax cuts, rather than temporary economic distress.

"What the Bush administration has tried over and over again to do is blame deficits on events outside their control," said Thomas S. Kahn, chief of staff for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The C.B.O. report is confirmation that the Bush administration has locked us into long-term structural deficits that will take some very tough decisions to wipe out."

But J. T. Young, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said the administration was confident it could reduce the annual budget deficit by half over the next five years.

Mr. Young cautioned that increases in tax revenues often lagged behind increased economic growth, and he noted that the budget was still being affected by higher costs for the military and domestic security.

"The economic downturn was only one of the shocks," Mr. Young said. "Even though the recession is over, we still have to spend what is necessary in the war on terrorism."

Brian M. Reidl, a senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, said control over government spending would be crucial. He said the agency report projected a 42 percent rise in spending from 1999 through 2005, but a tax revenue increase of only 19 percent. "Economic booms are not forever, but government programs are," Mr. Reidl said. "In the absence of real spending reform, the deficits are not going to go down."”

“"Inherited Recession" - I remember all the wall street pundits, as well as the Bush Administration touting 2000 & 2001 as a "possible" recesseion, or that we were subject to the "immenent threat" of a recession..... now it's inherited.

Spin, spin, spin, tra-la-la, tra-lala”

“Something that really annoys me is that when there is a good fiscal year, the legislature (not the pres or governors) will vote in all these spending packages that we can not sustain when the economy goes south, as it's going to from time to time.

How about they learn to stop spending so much at every opportunity, and that will bring about real tax cuts. Right now, when they say we'll cut the taxes for fill in the blank they have to raise them somewhere else to pay for all the programs. It's one thing to say cut taxes, but without cutting spending, there truly are no tax cuts.”

“And when they run up the national debt (not just some pissant yearly deficit), we and future generations get to pay it all back With Interest!”

“Of course the recession was inherited. That is pretty easy to prove. It was made worse by Enron/Worldcom, 9/11. Since then it has grown and continues up.”

“USA Today
Posted 9/15/2003 8:47 PM

Tax cuts are not to blame
By Stephen Moore


The pronouncement that the federal deficit may exceed more than $500 billion next year — a figure greater than the entire gross domestic product of most nations — has American taxpayers justifiably infuriated. Running up debt obligations like this on future generations is a form of congressional child abuse. Our children and grandchildren will pay a hefty financial price for our current financial recklessness. They may not soon forgive us.
But the binge in debt spending is not a result of President Bush's tax cuts. At most, only about 25% of the deficits are a result of the tax cuts. Moreover, if the Bush tax cuts generate a stronger stock market, higher business profits and more jobs, the faster levels of economic growth will be a major factor in helping generate more tax revenues to bring the deficit down.

So far so good on this score: Since the president's capital gains and dividend tax cuts were enacted in May, the resulting stock market rally has increased Americans' wealth by more than $1 trillion, according to the American Shareholders Association.

The root of the huge deficits has been an inability of Congress and the White House to control their spending appetite. In the past three years, the federal budget has grown more than one-half trillion dollars. Some of this is attributable to justifiable expenses to fight the war on terrorism. But non-terrorism-related federal expenditures are now growing at a faster pace than at any time since Lyndon Johnson was president.

The most vital step in restraining the tidal wave of red ink that has engulfed Washington is to just say "no" to the unconscionable $450 billion prescription drug bill for senior citizens. If allowed to pass Congress, it will add $3 trillion to the national debt during the next 60 years. Since roughly 75% of seniors already have private drug benefits, why pile huge new debts on the backs of our children? This is like pouring gasoline onto a burning home.

Ronald Reagan once said that "to compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors." That has never been more true than today. We won't rebalance our federal budget until the politicians come to grips with their addiction to overspending.”

“What he doesn't say is that a prescription plan that allowed the gov't to negotiate for lower drug prices would have been MUCH more affordable.

Drug company contributions to the Republicans pretty much killed any chance of that.


Wow. according to this guy the tax cuts only increased the deficit 25%.

Do you have any concept of what 25% of HALF A TRILLION dollars is?


And are these the numbers that result if the tax cuts are allowed to sunset on schedule...... THEN they make them permanent after the election and recompute the deficit to be God Knows What?

It smells like another coverup... like the way Bush and Co. covered up what their criminal prescription plan was actually going to cost.”

“THE DEMOCRATS' (SECRET) PLAN FOR AMERICA

The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections. It's nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year. I guess you can't blame them. Nothing else has worked. The tried to hand the Florida election problems on Bush. No go. Then it was the economy, and that didn't work either. They gave a stab at the "Bush is stupid" routine, but Americans aren't buying it. Enron looked worse for Clinton than it did for Republicans, so the Social Democrats had to give up on that one too. So, it's time to go back to Democratic roots. Try to scare the beejezus out of older voters. It's worked in the past -- so it will surely work this time.

The ploy is simple. Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. It's an old trick, tried and true. The Democrats roll this one out every single election. This time the point men are Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe. They're both telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected.

So .. now that the Democrats have opened this whole "secret plan" idea – what about the secret plans of the Democratic Socialists? Just what legislative agenda does the Democrat Party plan to pursue if and when they gain control of the Senate, the House and the presidency? Well, your Talkmaster has been watching these socialists for years, and taking notes. Here are just some of the goodies the Social Democrat Party has in store for the people of America.

Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes This is the biggie – and they've made no attempt to hide their goals here. The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans. The idea is simple. Using "refundable" tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.

Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"

Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all. But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched! It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits. So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan! The elimination of payroll taxes for the poor!

This is a plan that was put forth by Democrat Robert Reich on the Cutie-Pie and Holmes show on Fox News Channel on July 31, 2002. The idea is to, as Reich puts it, "lift the tax burden off the poor" by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of income. Here's how you do it. The Democrats pass a law which says that nobody has to pay any payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride! They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters. But wait! Isn't that going to cost the government money? Are you kidding? Of course it's not! It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues! Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes. To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear. Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000.

So, there you go. Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners. The Democratic way.

Massive increase in Social Security taxes As we've said, Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying. Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program's protectors in congress. The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office. The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups. The solution? The Democrats have a "secret plan" to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes. Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income. Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn ... no matter how much that is. There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners. The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy.

End the home mortgage interest deduction

Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades. They call it a "subsidy." Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy." But we're talking about the more intelligent among us. These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway!

As soon as the Democrats manage to gain control of the federal government they will move to eliminate this "subsidy for the rich." They know that there will be little adverse political fallout. After all -- the mortgage interest deduction is only valuable to people who actually pay income taxes AND who itemize their deductions. Democrats have already succeeded in removing most of their core constituency from the income tax rolls --- so what is there to lose?

When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell.

Socialized Medicine

They already tried this with Hillary Care. It failed. Democrats aren't discouraged by failure. They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill. There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy. One, of course, is power. Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy. If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved. The second reason is control. Think about it. If you control a person's access to healthcare ... you effectively control that person.

Right now the Democrats have had to put their plans for socialized medicine on hold. Those pesky Republicans in the House and the White House are making things tough. Democrats have to be satisfied with just sitting up there in the Beltway blocking any efforts to introduce competition into the medical marketplace.

Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition. This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush's economic stimulus plan. There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance. They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium. Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers. Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price.

Tax your pension funds

This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clintonista years. As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared. Right now it's being "secretly" incubated by Democrats to be hatched when they regain control. The idea is simple. There are trillions of dollars out there in various private pension and 401K plans. All of these trillions of dollars are earning interest for (gasp!) private investors and individuals and not for the government! To make matters worse – most of these private pension and 401K plans are owned by the evil, hated upper income earners.

The "secret" plan? A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans. This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners.

Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats? Not really. The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans. These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.

Tax your pension contributions also

After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans. The theory is that "rich" people shouldn't be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when "poor" people don't have that opportunity.

The Magic of Imputed Income

Imputed? What does "imputed" mean?

One definition is to "credit." So, by imputed income, we mean that you are credited with income you didn't necessarily earn.

The goal is clear. Democrats want to milk the high-achievers for as much money as they possibly can. There are really only two ways Democrats can get more income tax out of you. One way is to raise the tax rates. At some point this is going to prove to be politically risky. So, how else can they bleed you for more? Even Democrats who have been to government schools can do simple math. They know they can get more money out of you if that line on your income tax return that reads "taxable income" can be increased. Forty percent of $120,000 is more than 40% of $90,000. All you have to do is impute – credit – more income to the poor taxpaying high-achiever.

So --- here is the idea that the Clinton Administration was tossing around prior to the voter revolution of 1994. They were going to impute – credit – extra income to people who own their own homes. This was going to be done for two reasons. First, to push more people into the higher income brackets where Clinton tax increases could reach them. Second, to increase the amount of taxes actually collected from these people. Here's how Clinton's imputed income scheme was going to work:

Let's say you own a home worth $250,000. Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month. The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for. Let's say it would rent for $3000 a month. This means that you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments. But you're not renting your home, you're living in it. You must know that this just isn't fair to people who have to rent homes. They don't get the tax deductions you get. They don't own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven't, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it, "won life's lottery."

Well .. since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you, to spend on those poor renters and people who aren't as "fortunate" as you are. This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.

So ... here is this element of the Democrats' secret plan for you and your bank account. When you fill out your tax return you will have to consult certain tables and government data to determine what a home like yours would rent for in your neighborhood. Using the example above, your home would rent for $3000. You're paying $2000 a month to your mortgage company. You will be instructed to take the difference ($1000 a month) and multiply it by 12. This gives you $12,000. That's your imputed income. Add that to your other earnings to come up with your taxable income. That adds up to more than $4,500 in additional income taxes if you're in the top tax bracket. Hey, it's only fair ... you being rich and all.

Don't gripe. This is all for those needed government programs for the "less fortunate."

By the way --- you should know that there is an imputed income bill in the Congress. It's about child support, not home mortgages. If you're a deadbeat dad who owes back child support you would, under this law, have to add the amount of your arrearage to your taxable income and pay taxes on it. Fact is, you've already paid taxes on this income once. The bill would just punish you for not forking it over to the ex-wife by making you pay tax on it a second time. Today, child support. Tomorrow, that money you could be making if you would only rent your home instead of live in it.

Economically Targeted Investments -- controlling your pension fund investments.

Here we are, right back at your pension funds and 401K funds again. Again --- there is so much money in these funds, trillions of dollars, that the Democrats just can't leave them alone. All of this money just sitting there and not one penny of it is being used to buy votes for Democrats. So --- here comes the idea of Economically Targeted Investments. "ETIs" the Democrats call them, and they're a huge part of the Democrat "secret" agenda. All they need is control in Washington.

Here's the deal. The government grants various tax breaks to these retirement plans. As you know, or as you should know, tax breaks are usually granted to force some individual or corporation to act and behave in some manner pleasing to government. The Democrats plan to change the rules on pension and 401K accounts. Instead of just investing these funds in stocks and bonds, fund managers will be required by the government to invest these funds in certain investments dictated by government -- by Democrats. In this way the governments can fund some of their spending schemes, but without using government funds. The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles. Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left. In short order the Democrats will have rules in place which state that these pension funds cannot be invested in companies that are "unfriendly" to unions. To a Democrat ... any company with a non-union workforce is "unfriendly" to unions. Corporations who have affirmative action programs will get the not. Companies who hire and promote on merit will not.

All of this will mean that the Democrats can claim credit for spending on some of their favorite programs without going to the taxpayers. They can just, in effect, use pension money. The end result, of course, is lower returns on pension fund investments -- and lower pension benefits to retirees. That doesn't bother the Democrats, though. The less money you have to retire on the more dependent on government you will be.

Force employers to pay for "family leave."

Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid "family leave" to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation. The key here is that the family leave is unpaid. The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation. The Democrats "secret" plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee's salary. This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave. Paying people for not working --- a Democrat staple.

Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny As Democrats work diligently for more control over our economy and increase levels of income redistribution many high-achieving Americans are making plans to run. The greater the confiscation of wealth becomes the more people start looking for other countries in which to base their businesses. Democrats have a "secret plan" to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.

Government paid childcare for majority of voters

The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn't have a baby they can't afford to raise. Democrats know that children are the absolute more important thing in the lives of millions of Americans. They have been working for decades to impose ever more expensive rules and regulations on private child care agencies. They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent. Thus ... the necessity of child care. If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government ... and Democrats.

Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination) Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats are more than thrilled with the increased propensity of many Americans to look to government for the solution to virtually all problems they face in their daily lives. Democrats know that to teach people that they can expect the government to be there to solve all of their problems you have to start with the children. Catholic schools can be expected to teach their students that Catholicism is good. Jewish private schools are going to sing the praises of Judaism. Christian schools will teach the children that Jesus is really cool. Government schools? Government schools will promote what? Government! Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible. The "secret" plan? Continue to work against any ideas that would make it easier for parents to remove their children from government schools. This means working against such ideas as vouchers or tax credits to help parents afford the cost of private schools. They will also work to add increased regulations to parents who make the decision to home school their children.

Government imposed limits on executive income

This one is really going to have to wait until Democrats have a solid control of the federal machine. The Social Democrat party has plans to institute limits on executive compensation. The idea is to impose confiscatory corporate income taxes on companies who pay their top executives more than X-times the compensation paid to the lowest-paid employees.

Repealing the Second Amendment

Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.

Destroy talk radio

Democrats aren't fond of talk radio. They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994. Leftists realize that almost all successful talk radio shows are hosted by people who do not share their political views. They will try to neutralize talk radio through regulation. Since Democrats love the "fair" word so much, they'll try to resurrect something called the "Fairness Doctrine." How would this law work? Well, for example, a talk show host would not be allowed to voice opposition to a particular Democrat goal without finding some Democrat to go on the air to defend that goal. Talk radio soared in listenership and popularity following the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats know that talk radio can once again be pushed into the radio background with new regulations that stifle conservative and libertarian voices. Give them the power -- and it's time for me to retire. You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.

Wait! There's more

The above list is by no means complete. Keep you eye on this page as we work to expose even more of the "secret plans" of America's socialist party, the Democrats.”

“Whoa!!! Long posts like that don't even get read. Can you post a short synopsis of what it says, and post a link for those interested in the full version?”

“Jebus Cripes!! How did that conservative hack get the 'Secret Plans'?!?!?! The jig is up! Somebody spilled the beans! The cat's outta the bag!”

“Who Really Pays Taxes in America?
by Cheryl Woodard

Recent news articles about skyrocketing tax fraud and corporate tax dodging have prompted a high level of public concern about the overall fairness and effectiveness of our current tax system. AskQuestions.org – an online news site that addresses issues raised by public demand – released a report today on “Who Really Pays Taxes in America?”

Drawn primarily from government statistics, the report describes not only how the tax burden has shifted from corporations to private citizens over the past 20 years, but also a disturbing new twist: the richest American households pay about 30 percent less tax – which includes federal, state, and local taxes combined -- than middle-income households pay. And the public apparently understands what’s going on: an AP poll released Tuesday reports that 49 percent of Americans believe their taxes have gone up, not down, as a result of the Bush tax cuts, consider all the new local and state taxes imposed in response to withering Federal grants to the states. And new CNN/Money Magazine poll reports that, "60% of Americans said the Bush tax cut did not personally help them."

In his proposed budget for 2005, President Bush cuts another $6 billion in federal aide to states, even though 30 states already face shortfalls totaling about $40 billion next year and more cutbacks in state spending are inevitable, as well as more increases in local taxes. While there are no national statistics that add up the costs, anecdotal evidence is clear. One California couple received a $100 tax refund from President Bush for 2003, but paid $515 in new local taxes. A self-employed man living in Nassau County, NY got a $300 tax rebate last year, but his property taxes went up $2,250.

While honest taxpayers deal with their growing burden, the independent IRS Oversight Board reported that tax fraud is $311 billion dollars per year – more than federal spending on Medicare in 2003 and greater than the gross revenues of either Walmart or General Electric. The Board continually requests funding to strengthen resources for IRS enforcement, but because some of the biggest campaign contributors may be the country’s worst tax cheaters, the incentives for auditing tax cheats is nil. As a result, audits are focused on those at the bottom of the income scale.

Yesterday, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times that corporate audit rates have dropped by half in recent years, and noted that in 2003 the IRS conducted face-to-face audits with only seven out of 1000 corporations (compared to 29 per thousand in 1992).

“If we simply collected the taxes cheaters are withholding from the system, we would have enough money to pay the college fees of every student in America, or to provide health insurance for small business employees,” says the AskQuestions.org report.

AskQuestions.org practices “bottom-up” journalism by inviting the public to submit questions. The most popular questions are handed over to professional researchers and reporters. Answering “Who Really Pays Taxes?” required the AskQuestions.org team to assemble a dozen practical suggestions from a range of experts about increasing the fairness of the tax code while also making it more effective at stimulating sustained economic growth.

Neither Presidential candidate is likely to talk about fraud and favoritism during the election campaign, but voters apparently want answers on these very issues. And the AskQuestions report frames the debate from a voter’s perspective, so that people will be armed with the information they need in order to raise their concerns with the candidates.

Authored by the Executive Director of AskQuestions.org, Cheryl Woodard, the full report is available online, along with the public questions and comments that prompted the article at http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=39

Woodard is a co-founder of several computer magazines, including PC Magazine and Macworld. A full-time business consultant to magazine publishers, Woodard sits on the board of directors at the Independent Press Association. ”

“1. I know my federal taxes have increased under Bush.

2. Bush is scum.

3. America is turning into scum because of Bush.”

“David Cay Johnson will be the guest on Booknotes (C-SPAN) Sunday night (~1 hour duration, 8 & 11 EDT) discussing his book covering the series of articles (11?) he's written on this topic:

Perfectly Legal”

“Bush paid 28% of his income in federal taxes. Look at John Kerry. He and is wife are worth 500 million, and he paid $90,575 in fedral taxes, or about 23% of his income. Kerry is manipulating the system for the very rich far worse than our current great President.”

“You should've been a comic instead of a lawyer.”

“In his proposed budget for 2005, President Bush cuts another $6 billion in federal aide to states, even though 30 states already face shortfalls totaling about $40 billion next year and more cutbacks in state spending are inevitable, as well as more increases in local taxes."
Phaedrus


so what? who cares? let local jurisdictions decide what to spend money on, and let them cut the fat just like the feds should be doing.

liberals never met a tax they didn't like. when they tell you they are gonna save you from that mean ole rich guy.....hold on to your wallet.”

“Let's compromise, strat. Let's make corporations pay the same percentage of income that you and I pay. That's fair isn't it?”

“Who's going to pay for Bush's war and everything else? Your kids, Strat. Maybe you should care more and I should care less.”

“I just saw the Booknotes replay.

Un#&%!$ingbelievable.”

“Edwin Locke:

"On Tax Day consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of the total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich. In the name of justice, the President, Congress and the American public should be demanding a tax cut that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy."

Or Larry Kudlow:

"For 1999, the most recent year for which complete Internal Revenue Service statistics are available, 6.3 million taxpayers, whose incomes were in the top 5%, paid nearly 60% of all income taxes, according to AP reporter Kurt Andersen. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more than a third of all taxes, and the taxpayers in the bottom half — those who earn less than $26,415 a year — pay only 4% of total income taxes."”

“Kerry voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000)

Kerry also voted against providing middle-class tax relief (vote number 1998-55 on Apr 1, 1998).

Hey Tilt, entrenched Washington insiders like Kerry are causing the problem that you decry.

By the way, good research StickmanWalking.”

“"On Tax Day consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes."

"For 1999, the most recent year for which complete Internal Revenue Service statistics are available, 6.3 million taxpayers, whose incomes were in the top 5%, paid nearly 60% of all income taxes, according to AP reporter Kurt Andersen."

So here is the funny thing. I often see these kinds of numbers quoted by people making the argument that the rich are over-taxed. In fact, these numbers seem to support the argument that the rich are *under*-taxed when you look at them in a broader context.

Take this into consideration; depending on the study, you will find that those in the top 1% hold approx. 95-99% of the wealth in the country. Those in the top 5% absolutely without a doubt hold approx. 99% of the wealth in the country.

So, basically, the top 5%:

holds: 99% of the wealth.
pays: 60% of the taxes.

the bottom 95%:
holds 1% of the wealth.
pays 30% of the taxes.

That means that the bottom 95% has more than their share of the tax burden. It really gets interesting if you look at what government services each group uses and the maintenance cost for those services. Super rich tend to use the government more heavily also, in terms of total cost...but I digress.

Turn off FoXNews and stop visiting moveon.org. Go get the raw tax bracket breakdowns and run the numbers for yousrself. You'll find that both sides exaggerate for effect but that the lefty granola types are actually quite a bit closer to the truth than Rupert's fascist TV crew.

I promise. :)”

“Sorry Pros, We're going to kick that lying sack o' #&%!$ back to Texas before he gets more people killed.

Back to the tax issue... The story is that somebody asked Frank Luntz about the 'Death Tax' (a term he coined).... He said if the Democrats had hired him instead the Republicans he'd have called it the 'Billionaires' Tax'. "Nobody pays it except people like Sam Walton and Bill Gates."

He was the Republicans' point man on the Estate Tax issue... in case you don't know.”

“Pros, you keep ranting about Kerry paying less tax. He and his wife file separately. He is only required by law to release his own numbers, not hers. You are truly spinning this issue, man!”

“Treebeard, candidates are not required to release any tax return information. The candidates who are not hiding anything of course will release information. The information Kerry released showed he is paying far less of his fair share. So what is Kerry hiding? All those tax loopholes he voted for so they, oh, excuse me, his wife, could use to avoid paying their fair share.

It is not spinning the issue to point out that Bush paid 28% of his income in federal taxes and Kerry who is worth much more, only paid 23% of his income in federal taxes. What Kerry says and what Kerry does shows that he is a hypocrite who flip flops on the issues and cannot be trusted.”

“What ever you say, Prosecutor. Whatever Bush does is right and on the up and up. He has never made a wrong decision in his life and is worthy of respect from every living soul on this earth. Kerry is scum and I guess I am too, according to people like you.


Feel better now?”

“All wealth should be devided equally among all peoples even if they don't work. We should also wear uniforms like the Chinese so there is no class strife.”

“Nigal, please leave the starch out of my uniform. I chafe easily...”

“Turn off FoXNews and stop visiting moveon.org. Go get the raw tax bracket breakdowns and run the numbers for yousrself. You'll find that both sides exaggerate for effect but that the lefty granola types are actually quite a bit closer to the truth than Rupert's fascist TV crew
AnonymousCoward
06:11:37 AM
04/19/04

To begin with, I don't get Fox News--I don't have cable. Secondly, I've never visited the website you referenced. Third, the information I posted was originally used to counter a Fox News report somewhere else. Fourth, you wanted the raw numbers, here they are:
”