Democrat Thinking

[Andy L]

Well, you libbys out there elected them. Hope your happy. :mad:




October 22, 2006

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just
another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".
"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq
our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time
highs. "What this really means is" that business is exploiting the war
effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".
When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the
rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
recipients,
the unemployed an d minorities are not sharing in these obscene record
highs".

"There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the
Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars
redistributed to the poor and working class".

"Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our
working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating
these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We
in
congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to
control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the
rich".

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments
in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she
replied
"That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these
investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming
that
if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor
sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous".
How
much of this "trickle down" ever get to the unemployed and minorities in
our
county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we
take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates
on
the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower
Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase government income
substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our
country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need
to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities.
For
example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country
who need our help along with millions of
unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long
ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to
have as "Americans"

A Bush spokesman responded to this interview by saying "Mrs. Pelosi has
set a new standard for the spin business".

[skeet]

According to that article... I know one Democrat that can't think!! Her name is Nancy Pelosi! What an idiotic statement. Gonna be tax and spend again in the near future. Might be time to jump a sinking ship!

[fabsroman]

I can only think that the article is a joke. If that is actually what Nancy Pelosi said, she has got to be the dumbest person on the planet, or at least tied for the honor.

Taxing 80% to 100% of a person or corporation's profit would essentially make that person or corporation decide to stop making a profit. Yep, that would be great for the economy. If they start taxing what I am making at an 80% rate, you can bet that I will stop working. I'll also stop spending money on a lot of things that keep other people employed.

Essentially, what she is trying to establish is a communist/socialist type of government. They are going to redistribute the wealth so that everybody gets the same amount. Now, I think we saw how well that worked in the USSR. Honestly, she must be out of her mind. This country's problems started in the last 100 years, when we had the World Wars and when the income tax came into being. It has just been getting worse ever since. Before that, we were unified on getting certain things completed (e.g., expansion, evolution of the economy). Now, we are retarded.

It won't be long until China takes over as the world power.

Okay, I did some research and snopes says that Nancy Pelosi did not say anything like what is posted above. I also read some of her quotes, and she does make sense. She is against a national sales tax, which would be a very regressive tax instead of the progressive tax that we have now. A national sales tax would mean that the poor and middle class would pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy because the poor and middle class would have to spend most of their money every year just to live and by spending the money they would be taxed. Essentially, it is a consumption tax. Since the rich would be able to keep money in the bank and would not have to use as much of their income to survive, they would pay less in taxes.

This is what is so wrong about our nation. We are so quick to look at the other side as the enemy, instead of doing something that actually helps our nation as a whole. She is for tax cuts that will help the poor and middle class, which most of us on this site are in. The tax break on dividends was great, but that only applied to people that had enough money in stocks to be able to put the money into dividend earning stocks and switch it out of stocks that earned money through growth. That would save 5% on income tax (i.e., Dividends are taxed at 15% and Capital Gains are taxed at 20%). Of course, if you are like most people and merely have money in a bank account earning interest, you pay the standard income tax rate on that interest which is usually 25% unless you are really poor. I would be willing to bet that most of us on this board have more money in our savings accounts/CD's than we have in a brokerage account, and when I say a brokerage account, I do not mean a retirement account because those accounts are either tax deferred or tax free (e.g., Roth IRA).

She also goes on to state that we need to work on the nation's deficit. Guess what, I agree. When our deficit is $8,000,000,000,000.00, and a lot of it is owed to foreign countries, there is a serious problem. Last I checked, the US didn't have the ability to declare bankruptcy.

I just want the nimrods in Congress to get together and do something under the guise of common sense, instead of democrat or republican politics.

For the Republicans to propose a flat tax or a national sales tax, is utterly irresponsible for the poor and middle income families.

[Lilred]

A national sales tax would mean that the poor and middle class would pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy because the poor and middle class would have to spend most of their money every year just to live and by spending the money they would be taxed.

OK...I know I aint the brightest crayon in the box...but I'm poor. ALL my friggin money goes to livin..livin as in..electricity, phone, gas, babysitters etc.
So why in the hell should I pay more taxes at the end of the year when I already pay out the ass fer em all year long? Not to mention that folks in Michigan pay 3 bucks fer a loaf of bread versus Virginia's 1 buck. Why should I make a lesser wage than folks in Michigan but pay the same sales tax rate? Again...bullschiet.
The rich put their money in accounts and crap so they aint gotta pay taxes!
None of this makes much sense to me.

[fabsroman]

Lilred,

The National Sales Tax and the Flat Tax was proposed by the Republicans, which pisses me off.

The reason why you make less than a person in Michigan is because the cost of living is less in your area. That is why people that work in New York City make a heck of a lot more than people that live elsewhere in the country. A 700 sf condo costs $2,000 a month to rent in New York, and those are the really old places. So, if things cost 3 times more in Michigan than they do where you live, then people would get paid 3 times more in Michigan than where you live.

When I was in New York City several years ago for a deposition, I paid close to $15 for a slice of pizza and a soda. I almost had a heart attack until I remembered that the firm would be picking up the tab.

[LoneWolf]

I've got to disagree with you on a flat tax or a sales tax Fabs.
Cut out all the loop holes, and every one pays the same. Doesn't matter what you make, tax rates are the same. Or if its sales tax, your not paying if your not buying. Obviously, food items would have to be non tax.
I am sick and tired of hearing about what is fair, what isn't fair...how could something that everyone pays the same rate NOT be fair?
None of this would eliminate your own state's way of collecting taxes, and I'm sure they'll find their way to get a fair share too.
I am just sick and tired of hearing about people b**ching about how the poor need tax breaks... most of them get more back than they paid in. Meanwhile the middle class, or as the Democrats like to call us, "the elite" pay through the nose. Unless we want to play all kinds of games with our 1040 forms of course.
Not trying to offend you Fabs, but I'm just ranting here. Besides, no tax changes will take place like we are talking about. Way to many CPAs, accountants, and large firms like H&R Block would lose out.

[Lilred]

Well...wether I make a dollar an hour er 30 dollars an hour.....the rich git richer & the poor git poorer...and that right there will never change.

[Andy L]

Another thing sales tax would do is bring alot of money that is not taxed now to the system. Drug money, tax cheats, ect.... Everyone has to pay sales tax if you spend the money.

There are always going to be classes. If there isnt, I dont want anything to do with it. That would mean we are socialist or communist. We have to have rich, middle and lower class. I accept the fact I will always be somewhere in the middle or upper lower. Im happy there. Have no desire to be rich.

Lil Red, I got a feeling your much richer than you let on. Ive seen pics of you and your family. You got a good job. Im betting you keep your bills paid. Im betting you always got enough to eat and love to hunt. Im in the same boat and Im much richer than my bank account says.

I gotta stop and remember that sometimes.

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Andy L
Im in the same boat and Im much richer than my bank account says.

I gotta stop and remember that sometimes.
I guess that same thing goes for me too Andy.
Thanks for reminding me of it.;)

[Lilred]

Bless yer peapickin heart andy....yer most correct.
and believe you me...money is at the bottom of the important list round here.....mostly cause i gotta spend to much time away from home and huntin makin it lol

money is a vice anyways..the more you got..the more you want.

[fabsroman]

Yep, that is true. The more money you have, the more you spend, and the more you want.

A sales tax and a flat tax will not work, at least not for the federal govt it will not. States use sales tax right now, and look at how many are crying because it is not being collected for internet sales. How many of you guys actually submit your sales tax voucher to your state when you buy something out of state through the internet? Why wouldn't people be able to avoid sales tax on things by paying cash and not recording it on the books? I have seen it done to avoid state sales tax, so why wouldn't a cheater do it for a federal sales tax? Just because there are tax cheats on a Form 1040, doesn't mean there wouldn't be any on a sales tax.

The other reason a sales tax will not work is because it is a regressive tax. More of the poor and middle income will have to pay a greater percentage of their earnings in sales tax every year. For arguments sake, lets assume that the sales tax for federal purposes is 20%. If a person makes $20,000, and he has to spend all of it to live, he will pay $4,000 in taxes. Now, if another person makes $100,000, but only spends $20,000 of it to live, he will only pay $4,000 in taxes. The other $80,000 will remain untaxed because it is in savings and it will continue to earn interest tax deferred, much like a 401(K). So, both taxpayers pay the same amount even though one makes a lot more than the other. Now, what if the person never spends that $80,000, but passes it along to his children? Should there still be an estate and gift tax, and what should that amount be? Things are never black and white.

A flat tax has a better chance of working, but it still isn't great. Everybody will pay the same percentage in taxes, but it will be the poor who get hurt the most because they will have to pay a higher rate than they pay right now to make up for the fact that the rich will not be paying as much. The middle class will be left almost in the same place because the flat tax would be somewhere in the middle of the highest and lowest tax rates right now, where most of the middle class already fall.

Of course, how do you give tax breaks to people to encourage certain behavior. Should there be any incentive to have children? Should there be any incentive to start a business? There would still be expense write offs and depreciation I assume, so small business owners would still be able to screw around on their 1040. The flat tax is very doable, but it just will not end up being a flat tax because of all the other stuff in the tax code. We could tax the tax code right now and change the rates to a flat rate across the board, but people would still be able to take advantage of "loopholes". Now, to get rid of all those "loopholes" probably wouldn't be a good thing. Which ones should we get rid of?

Home interest deduction?
Home interest deduction on second home?
Child Tax Credit?
Real Estate Taxes?
Charitable Deductions?
Section 179 expense write offs for small business?
Hybrid vehicle tax credit?
Exemptions for children?
Unreimbursed employee expenses?
Maybe delete all itemized deductions?

I am not arguing this because I will lose business with a flat tax or a sales tax, I am arguing this because this isn't so simple as just saying "Institute a Sales Tax in lieu of the current income tax" or "Institute a Flat Tax in lieu of the current income tax." It is just not that simple.

[Andy L]

It would take some tweaking, but I still think the sales tax could work and be much simpler. Impose stiff penalties if caught doing cash sales. All the people now that mess with checking taxes could be checking inventory, making sure everythiing missing from shelves was taxed.

As for the flat tax, if I remember correctly, and no Im not going back to research it, but to protect the "poor", the last time it was brought up, wasnt it in the plans to give everyone the first $25k they made? Everyone gets $25k, untaxed, to live on. Flat rate after that. If you dont make $25k, you dont pay tax.

Say the rate was 20%. Lets see, a "poor" person that makes $20,000 would pay nothing. A middle class person that makes $50,000 would pay $5000. A person making $100,000 would pay $15,000. A person making $250,000 would pay $45,000. It would essentially still be progressive, although the rate stays constant.

I think it went something like that. That scenario is very lucrative to the middle and lower class. I think there were still going to be deductions for business expenses, of course, so it was based on profits and not total receipts. But other personal deductions were takin away.

As for the other taxes you listed, those piss me off to no end. Especially death and estate taxes. Its a very sad thing that a person can work their whole lives and build something, like a ranch for example, and not pass it along to their kids without the government and a bunch of damned attornies getting their grubby paws in it.

(Couldnt help it, had to throw that that last half sentence in. You know it was just a freindly gouge Fabs. :D )

[fabsroman]

I will agree that we need a better tax system that allows a lot less cheating. We need something that people can understand a lot easier and one that the IRS can enforce a lot easier. Last year's tax gap, the difference between what people should have paid and what they actually paid, was $340 billion. A decade of recovering that, and some good budgetary controls, and we might be able to get rid of the national debt, or at least significantly decrease its size.

This past session, Congress was debating the elimination of the charitable deduction, or putting a floor on it of $400 before you could take any deduction whatsoever, because people always put something down for charitable deductions. Instead, they made the level of proof harder should you get audited.

Congress was also talking about limiting the home mortgage deduction to the interest on the first $400,000 of the loan, but that didn't get passed either.

[Jack]

As to the flat tax debate, it might be worth noting that when Malcolm Forbes was running for president and touting the idea, he was using a figure of a 17% flat tax.
Some independent groups did some math checking and stated that for the flat tax to produce the revenue the current system does, the flat tax rate would need to be about 34%.
That seemed to dash a lot of the enthusiasm for a flat tax.

[M.T. Pockets]

I'm a working stiff myself, and I am usually pro-business. Like most on this board I started with nothing, working for a little over minimum wage until I had opportunities to advance.

Fabs, you can help me with the details on this.

I can say now that I believe there has never been a better time to be a tax payer. A working family with two kids pays very little, if any, income tax on the first $40,000 or so of income. The standard deductions and personal excemptions have been increased to the point that not many people itemize anymore, and they're much better off with the higher standard deduction. With the child tax credit you get a couple grand back off the top of what is taxed for having kids. I know that I earn twice what I did 10 or 15 years ago, and pay less taxes.

Most of the withholding people see goes to FICA, and most families don't start paying Federal Income tax until they're earning around $40,000 gross. Then it is a relatively low percentage.

A Federal Value Added Tax scares the bejiggers out of me because I know what would happen. We'd have both an income and sales tax. Don't think it could happen ? Ask anyone who lives in a state that adopted a "temporary" sales tax like Minnesota did a couple generations ago and watch it increase from 2% to 6.5%. It's not called temporary anymore. Oh, yes. We also have the second highest income tax in the Country.

[Andy L]

I agree MT. Im making a hell of alot more now than I was ten years back and paying about the same tax.

BUT, the RATS are back. That will change.

[M.T. Pockets]

I know Andy, I just wanted to point out that the "tax breaks for the rich" sure have helped the poor working stiff like me.

[fabsroman]

Good Lord MT,

With tax rates like that in your state, I would be crying.

Yes, the standard deduction is pretty high, along with the personal exemptions.

For 2006, the standard deduction was $10,300 for a married couple filing jointly and the personal exemption amount was $3,300. So, a married couple with two children would get standard deductions and personal exemptions totaling $23,500. So, the first $23,500 would be tax free. Now, the tax rates for 2006 were the following for a married couple:

0$ to $15,100 = 10%
$15,100 to $61,300 = 15%

The tax code also provides for a $1,000 tax credit for each child, but the specifics (i.e., phaseout) gets a little tricky. For this example, lets assume that each child qualifies for the tax credit.

So, a married couple with two kids would have to make above $41,866 before they had to pay anything in taxes.

The highest rate right now is 35%, which only applies once a married couple gets above $336,550 in Taxable income. The old rate used to be 38%.

I think the current tax code is the best one that we have had in a long time for everybody. Granted, $41,866 is tough to live on in these parts, but it can be done. Plus, the tax rate after that amount is only 15% until the couple gets to $84,800. Now, $84,800 is a lot easier to live on around here, and I would assume that most people throughout the country would be living pretty well if they were making $84,800 as a couple. They wouldn't be poor if they didn't spend their money foolishly.

I find that a lot of the "poor" thing is about priorities. I went to lunch with some high school friends, and I started talking about college funds because I have a daughter on the way. I was surprised to find out that neither of them had started college funds and their children were older than 5. For one couple, I could believe it because they didn't live extravagantly, but not for the other. They owned a brand new mini-van that cost $30,000 and an Infiniti 35 series that must have cost $35,000 to $40,000. They were astounded when I told them that I plan on putting $500 a month away for college, but the reason I can do that and not feel any pain is because I took some of our savings and paid off all of our vehicles which saves us on interest and it provides a positive cash flow to us of $1,100 a month. I refuse to buy a new car until everything else is taken care of (e.g., single family home, college funds, retirement) or until one of our current cars breaks down. I drive a 1998 Taurus with 160,000 miles on it, and I am hoping that it will make it to 2018. I went to another friend's place over the weekend and he was crying about how he couldn't afford life insurance to protect his two kids and his wife because he is the only income earner. I felt sorry until I saw the $3,000 HD TV hanging on the wall and the new entertainment system.

There is another quote I like to use. If we took all the money in the US, divided it evenly amongst everybody, the poor would be poor in two years and the rich would be rich again in two years.