Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting column about the tax cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting column about the tax cuts

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/

    Three of the things (out of many other things) that jumped out at me in this column...

    If Bush gets what he wants, the income tax will become a misnomer—it will really be a salary tax. Almost all income taxes would come from paychecks—80 percent of income for most families, less than half for the top 1 percent. Meanwhile taxpayers receiving dividends, interest and capital gains, known collectively as investment income, would have a much lighter burden than salary earners—or maybe none at all.
    and...

    The Democrats were also burned, badly, by not fixing the estate tax. They let it become a perceived threat to middle- and upper-middle-income households by refusing to raise the amount exempted from the tax to keep pace with the nation's growing wealth. The Democrats' sloth gave Bush an opening to seem like a populist by proposing to kill the tax. Only about 2 percent of estates send a check to Uncle Sam, but that fact's been obscured by Bush's successful campaign to demonize it as a "death tax" imperiling the well-being of the masses.
    This is interesting that only 2% of estates were taxed, because the exemption is currently $1 million dollars (and Kerry wants to raise it to several million, not abolish it completely like Bush wants to do). From reading what some have said on this forum and elsewhere, I would have thought that the exemption was much lower, like a hundred thousand or something, but 98% of the time, no money is sent to Uncle Sam when someone dies and there is an inheritance.

    One reason the federal budget has been under such pressure the past few years is that corporations are picking up a lot less of the tab than they used to—7.4 percent, down from 20.3 percent 40 years ago. A major reason corporate taxes are a smaller part of the pie is that companies have gotten far more aggressive about avoiding taxes. They prefer the risk of being exposed publicly as pigs to the certain wrath of their shareholders if profits don't keep climbing nicely.
    Another big surprise - Corporations are paying much less of the total federal taxes now than they were 40 years ago. Again, with all the blathering from certain people about how corporations are overtaxed, this must be quite a surprise to them.
    “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

    Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

  • #2
    everything is ok
    Are you on the list?

    Comment


    • #3
      The exemption for estate taxes used to be $675,000. It was raised to $1 million in 2001.

      In my opinion, even having 2% of estates taxed is too much. In effect it amounts to double taxation. The income and gains were subject to tax when earned so why should death be an event that triggers taxation?
      LONG LIVE THE NOTE!

      Comment


      • #4
        bumped for the daytime workweek crowd
        “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

        Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree, that the current tax structure is very complicated. No matter what you do, someone will say it's not fair. I think, the only really fair way to do it, is to have a flat tax on all earnings with no deductions.

          I agree with eliminating the estate tax, it just doesn't make sense. The money is taxed when it is earned, it makes no sense to tax it again. I don't know if I believe that 2% number. I've seen people forced to sell off family assets to pay estate taxes. These people weren't rich, at least not cash rich, they all inherited some land that had been in their family for a long time. I don't think it's right to make people sell off something their family has owned for many years.
          Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

          Comment


          • #6
            Flat tax or use tax. Simple as that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Look. Let's just get it over with. Either kill all the unemployed, or kill all the rich and take their money.

              What's so fuckin' hard about this?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Apr 5 2004, 08:43 AM
                or kill all the rich and take their money.

                That would work, but then there would be nobody left to pay the bills.
                Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interesting thought, Reggie.

                  I know this won't get play here, but did anyone happen to see the New Yorker story on height?

                  Yeah, what the hell does that have to do with our discussion?

                  Take some time and read it.. It's interesting the conclusions the experts have come up with.

                  After reading it I was wondering what others thought. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X