http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030524&cat=news&st=newsbushtaxesdc


Life is about to get better??????:bugeye:

Yup, life will get better for the rich, not for you. Besides, you will get the tax cut from fed gov't while our genius Bloomberg will raise taxes everywhere his eye goes.:(

whitewolf
did it ever cross your mind that the richest ten percent of people in the united states pays 90 % of the taxs so it would seem logical that they recieve the most back from a tax refund. unless ofcorse you want to giive back 3000 dollars to person who only pays 2000 dollars in taxs. that would be fair right. some one who pays 10000 dollars should only get 1000 back. that is extremly fair, right? its simple logic you pay more you get more back.

Av, where did you get those statistics? and, im a democrat, that says everything, sorry.

Originally posted by whitewolf
and, im a democrat, that says everything, sorry.


Really what does that say???? :bugeye:

Really what does that say????

He's a black Jew that doesn't report to his zionist leader.

AvatarOfWoe,

Ever since you showed up this forum has showed some improvement. Thank you for being here, and thank you for holding most of the same opinions that I do.

Rich ***ers pay the most taxes. I make $10 grand a year. I pay about $2300.00 in taxes. Damn government. Now, that rich guy that makes One Million a year pays $230,000.00 in taxes. Who pays more? Me or him? Who needs more money? Me. Okay, I just answered my own question.

Yup... Im black...
I simply hold the Democrats' views on economy (really, economic views are the main differences bw the two parties). I am mid. class, I need money a lot more than that rich guy.
$10 grand?! dude... :( (really mean that sadness)

you may need more money than the rich do but how puts in more money the rich or the not so rich. the rich put in the most money so the deserve the most back. like i said before the more you put in the more you get back.

if you need money so bad go get a second job or get a rich uncle.haha

I happen to have a rich Dutch Uncle, he works in the USA as a president for Phillips. He is the kind of highroller you expect to contribute heavily for 90 percent of the taxes

Unfortunately, he won't share the loot with me and he and the other fatcats are all registered to be officially Bermuda residents, they fly to the island every year to give a fake act-de-presence and have their American VISA continued....so really, taxpaying is for poor succers....
I am sure the other players have equal ways to live off the land so to speak...

So this begs the question, if the richest 10 percent pays 90(!) percent of the taxes to keep a legally straight face, than they must be NOT PAYING an UNGODLY amount of TAX and EARNINGS that finds its way out of the country in most ingenious ways...

Did you know Pablo Escobar offered Columbia one time to pay for the entire trade-deficit if the made him a legal taxpayer, a respectable citizen ??? That was Pocketmoney , really...

AOW, it all goes round in circles and isnt that simple. The average mid. class will buy less if he has less in his pocket. If he buys less, less goods get consumed, and those are the goods produced by your rich asses. less goods are consumed, less goods will be produced next year, and workers may get laid off. and round it goes again.

well dosn't a tax refund put more money into the pockets of the middle class thus they spend more on comsumer products and a boost in economy follows. if more of the money you work hard to earn is left in your pocket than there is more money to be put into the economy and then there is going to be more goods produced.
before you start saying that less and less products will be produced think of this. the population of the world increases daily. would an increased population not be a reason to produce more and more products. there is more demand and thus more supply.
i can't understand why people don't want a bit of there hard earned money back so they may treat themselves to a present which will drive our capitolist economy.

i can't understand why people don't want a bit of there hard earned money back so they may treat themselves to a present which will drive our capitolist economy.
That is the point, more money to the middle class is the way to go (democratic view) and you just shifted positions.
Also, the last tax refund was saved or used to cover existing debts by the middle class. It is very important for the economy that the money is spent, not saved; bc if it is saved it is lost.
Population increases w babies; production of diapers and other baby products will not suffer:D But consumption of products for people after a certain age is more or less stable.

Avatarofwoe how rich are you? because i could use some dough buddy:D

Whitewolf and you both make good points. I guess different classes see different ways...no doubt though each looks out for their own interests and why shouldn't they. The "Screw or be screwed" ideology is favored today so fight dammint. You see poiticians depend on us to fightover stuff in order for them to come in power through mostly false promises......here's to the real intellects of our free world - the poiticians.

And counslercoffee - that was immature dude, calling whitewolf what you did.

how did i shift my opinion i have always been for people getting their money back and thats exactly what a tax refund will do. true it will give the rich the most back but they pay the most. but the middle classs will also get money back. everyone who pays taxes gets money back.
every tax refund ever put into effect by either republicans or democrates has spark the economy. ever single one. im just afraid that because the democrates have cut Bush's original plan in half it will not get the full affect of a tax cut. where are the democrates who want to give the money back so badly, they are the ones who cut back on bush's plan. what do you propose only to give a certain group back money, how would that be at all fair.
consumption is not stable for any age, it may take a while to reach the point where more is needed but every ten years there are more and more people in certain age groups.

im not rich im hust an average middle class american.

yes the rich should get less, they need it less.
i want a bigger tax cut, but, like ive stated in that thread ab voting, both parties have proven to be complete idiots! as i see it, ever since Bush got elected, the democrates' only policy is to negate everything republicans say, which is sick and dumb.
i didnt say completely stable, i said more stable. but now that i think of it, its all the same.
sarge, the dude was being sarcastic.

you may need more money than the rich do but how puts in more money the rich or the not so rich. the rich put in the most money so the deserve the most back. like i said before the more you put in the more you get back.

Yes, they may put the most money into the government, but they also have more. They still make more then me. Wayyy more then me. I deserve a tax break because I make wayyyy less then them. After all the taxes that are taken out on them, they still have enough to pay rent, buy a new car, invest in the stockmarket, and go out to eat. After taxes are taken out on me, I have no money.

P.S. Im a part time worker. Im in college to. So I make very little money.

people have been blinded by liberal spin. don't you think everyone deserves a tax break? democrates would have you believe that only the rich get the break when in reality every one does the rich get the most because they put more in. but in the end evryone gets money back. and under Bush's plan people will not pay as much in taxs. for example a four person family that now pays 2000 dollars in taxs will in many cases only pay 92 dollars. so not only will thay get an instant kickback but a break over the next few years. yes you probally need extra money because you are working your way through collage, and under Bush's plan you will get that. but not as much as bush originally wanted because the democrates, the democrates for the people cut it in half.

as another point, look up the 16th amendment and see if it was ever ratified. it wasn't ratified by conecticut, florida, rhode island, or utah. this means that it isn't law. and if you look up supreme court cases concerning this "amendment" they basically say that this dosn't give the governmet the power to tax income. basically income tax is unconstitutional. so the some 40 or 50 percent of your income that goes to the government really isn't lawfully taxed so it shouldn't have to be paid.

im all for giving me back whats mne but tell me the truth if you put in more time than your buddy at the job wouldn't it be fare to get more compensation for your labor. so wouldn't the same apply ot money.

AvatarofWoe, How much $$$ will the us "tax-reduction" effectively put in your pocket this year and why?

K, i thought ab it for a while and ...
So bigger tax cut, means less money for government, means they have less to spend on government jobs and people get laid off (i mean thousands!) thats not too good. Especially keeping in mind that the very lowest government positions will be laid off, the positions taken mostly by African and Latin Americans (so its a bit racist too).

i can't believe that you have made a tax cut into a racist act. your right less money for the govt. less money to go into the pockets of overpaid politicans. this tax refund will not empty the govt pockets. there won't be a mass firing of govt workers.

it amazes me that you have lost complete faith in our country and it also amazes me that you have the ability to boil everything down to race.

i said a bit racist... why do you have the habbit of exaggerating things i say?!
no, not to overpaid politicians but to federal jobs! there's a big difference! In New York, city jobs are generally (not completely, if you want to stick to every word i say) taken by Latin and Africa Americans. and yes, thousands have already been laid off here!

sorry if i over exaggerated your words but do you really think that Bush's plan is set in place because he wants gvt to lay off minority workers. you know whats funny also is that in the next few years latin people will have a majority in the united staes but will it still be racism if they are laid off the? just a thought.

New York isn't the best example. look they have been raising taxes ever since blumberg took office but they still are slowly having to lay off city workers and close firehouses. that is because the higher you raise taxes the less money the average worker has in his pocket, then the economy starts to produce less then as a result products coast more. by giving a tax refund you are giving money back to these people who are in desprit need.

I was under the distinct impression, like whitewolf, that gvt worlers have already been laid off. Furthermore,
"because he wants gvt to lay off minority workers."
Doesnt Bush like smaller gvt? (Except in the case of the armed forces and security agencies) Leaving aside whether it it deliberately aimed at minorities, i thought he still preffered less gvt.

"New York isn't the best example. look they have been raising taxes ever since blumberg took office but they still are slowly having to lay off city workers and close firehouses. that is because the higher you raise taxes the less money the average worker has in his pocket, then the economy starts to produce less then as a result products coast more. by giving a tax refund you are giving money back to these people who are in desprit need."

Firstly, can we dsmiss the idea that this tax cut will benefit those in need? It benefits the top 10% and less of taxpayers, middle calss people will get almost nothing. Also, the percentage of all tax paid by lower class people has increased in the past decade or two. Furthermore, companies paid about 2/3 of all tax 80 or so years ago, now its individuals that do.
I thought New York was a city, not the gvt. Surely part of the problem is that the overall tax take has fallen because of the recession/ downturn/ readjustment of the stock market, thus affecting the tax take, and so they have to try and pay for the programs etc they started in the boom years. Plus they are having to pay for the anti terorism precaustions, which is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. Why not consider the average worker has less money in his pocket because of the proven decrease in purchasing power of the mimimum wage? Or that prices of things are climbing at the rate of inflation or more, but his/ her wage isnt following at that rate?
Then I notice you talk about the average worker, who is the one expressly NOT being given any noticeable sums of money back by this tax cut. Havnt you heard of progressive taxation? The rich pay more because they have more, use more and generally if you dont try and even it up your country gets screwed.

Why not make it racist to lay off anyone on account of their skin colour?