Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 18:50:09
QUOTE
So you're saying those people who receieve more money should have to pay much less in ratio when compared to those who only make 1/30 of what they make?
What?
They pay a much higher percentage of their income, even after the income tax.
QUOTE
So if I made 300,000 dollars, and my tax was 80,000, now it's 20,000; you make 10,000 and the tax went from 1,000 to 800, do you think that's fair? The fact remains, they still pay much less proportionally. This is the entire point of the arguement.
I think you're getting confused here. Perhaps a run through the federal tax brackets is in order.
QUOTE
The other thing is, while not as relevant is explaining why he cut taxes in the first place. Sure, you may think it's a good thing, but you have to also consider what kind of a time period this is right now. Want to know? War. During this kind of time, taxes should be raised, not cut. Perhaps explaining this to me will allow me to see that Bush isn't that stupid.
Rasing taxes in war is not needed if other spending is cut; that isn't happenning, and I don't defend that.
I realized that I told you to check the tax brackets, and I doubt you will. So, just in case, here they are:
source
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-19 at 21:25:17
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, the people with lower income have to pay more than what I said.
You have to look at this proportionally, not the actual numbers.
You have to look at this proportionally, not the actual numbers.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 22:04:27
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Sep 19 2005, 07:24 PM)
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, the people with lower income have to pay more than what I said.
You have to look at this proportionally, not the actual numbers.
[right][snapback]317714[/snapback][/right]
You have to look at this proportionally, not the actual numbers.
[right][snapback]317714[/snapback][/right]
Check those percentages again.
High achievers pay a higher percentage and absolute amount.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-19 at 22:08:52
They also pay less in porportion, or maybe you don't understand the concept of "ratio".
Or maybe it's simply you not reading my example. I used 300,000, not the max they have on the list (which by the way, if you include the fact that it has no limit on the last one, still supports my theory).
Or maybe it's simply you not reading my example. I used 300,000, not the max they have on the list (which by the way, if you include the fact that it has no limit on the last one, still supports my theory).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 22:19:07
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Sep 19 2005, 08:08 PM)
They also pay less in porportion, or maybe you don't understand the concept of "ratio".
Or maybe it's simply you not reading my example. I used 300,000, not the max they have on the list (which by the way, if you include the fact that it has no limit on the last one, still supports my theory).
[right][snapback]317785[/snapback][/right]
Or maybe it's simply you not reading my example. I used 300,000, not the max they have on the list (which by the way, if you include the fact that it has no limit on the last one, still supports my theory).
[right][snapback]317785[/snapback][/right]
What are you saying? Percentages are ratios!
Explain to me how high acheivers -- since they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes -- pay a lower ration of their money in taxes?
You aren't high, are you?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-19 at 22:24:00
Sure, give me the percentages for say.. 1997. Or you can do the math yourself.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 22:31:58
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Sep 19 2005, 08:23 PM)
Sure, give me the percentages for say.. 1997. Or you can do the math yourself.
[right][snapback]317806[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]317806[/snapback][/right]
Why do those matter?
We're talking about whether the poor pay more taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut. We're also talking about whether the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the high achievers. Neither of those are true.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2005-09-19 at 22:44:53
QUOTE(Rivalry @ Sep 19 2005, 10:31 PM)
Why do those matter?
We're talking about whether the poor pay more taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut. We're also talking about whether the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the high achievers. Neither of those are true.
[right][snapback]317811[/snapback][/right]
We're talking about whether the poor pay more taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut. We're also talking about whether the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the high achievers. Neither of those are true.
[right][snapback]317811[/snapback][/right]
To the poor, taxes make it even harder for those living paycheck to paycheck. For the rich, it's really whether or not one can buy an extra yacht this year.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 22:47:55
It's another debate whether the poor deserve the money that the rich earned; that isn't what was asserted, however. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-19 at 22:57:46
QUOTE
We're talking about whether the poor pay more taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut
In order to successfully compare, you need two things, the past and the present. I see the present, where's the past?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-19 at 23:32:47
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Sep 19 2005, 08:57 PM)
In order to successfully compare, you need two things, the past and the present. I see the present, where's the past?
[right][snapback]317848[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]317848[/snapback][/right]
Hahaha.
You look it up, you and I both know that Bush didn't raise taxes; I've shown my proof that the high achievers pay a higher ratio of their money in taxes, you show that the tax cuts raised taxes on the poor.
A simple search of CNN.com should suffice.
The burden of proof isn't always on me, you know.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-20 at 01:09:52
This is a what 'if' statement.
Even if the poor are effected in a negative way becuase of the taxes, still the current administration is throwing money at the poor....
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
Even if the poor are effected in a negative way becuase of the taxes, still the current administration is throwing money at the poor....
QUOTE
As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history.
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2005-09-20 at 08:49:49
Funny... I don't remember any tax breaks.
Anyways, someone started talking about why taxxes were being cut in the first place...
Bush "wanted" to "create jobs" by cutting taxxes. Creating jobs means your people are making more so you get more taxxes back. During our (usa's) economic recession, creating jobs would have been a good thing... considering there was a net loss of jobs during Bush's reign (hasn't happened to any other president recently)...
However, by giving most of the tax breaks on the top people who don't need it (and really, they don't), the effort to create jobs was completely lost...
So the whole thing is meaningless.
10 people get jobs. They spend money on product X. People who sell / build / whatever hire another person to keep up with the demand. And it loops...
And to sum it all up, bush is stupid.
Anyways, someone started talking about why taxxes were being cut in the first place...
QUOTE
The other thing is, while not as relevant is explaining why he cut taxes in the first place. Sure, you may think it's a good thing, but you have to also consider what kind of a time period this is right now. Want to know? War. During this kind of time, taxes should be raised, not cut. Perhaps explaining this to me will allow me to see that Bush isn't that stupid.
Bush "wanted" to "create jobs" by cutting taxxes. Creating jobs means your people are making more so you get more taxxes back. During our (usa's) economic recession, creating jobs would have been a good thing... considering there was a net loss of jobs during Bush's reign (hasn't happened to any other president recently)...
However, by giving most of the tax breaks on the top people who don't need it (and really, they don't), the effort to create jobs was completely lost...
So the whole thing is meaningless.
10 people get jobs. They spend money on product X. People who sell / build / whatever hire another person to keep up with the demand. And it loops...
And to sum it all up, bush is stupid.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ViolentMoose on 2005-09-20 at 10:35:51
guys leave bush alone. and stop complaining and critising him its annoying theres about 20 topics about how we hate bush 5+ pages on all of them its really annoying im not flaming any 1 im just saying stop acting like kids and live with it we got him for 3 more yrs just chill out
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-09-20 at 20:18:48
That kinda mentality helped nazis throw jews into ovens. I'm sorry, but call me conservative, if the president ever crosses the line, I'm gonna shoot him. That's kinda what America is about. Infact, our forefathers SUPPORTED that kind of mentality. It's called the 1st and 2nd admendment.
If you think the president sucks, by all means, tell us! If you think he's a great president, then by all means, suck his blam! Just don't let me tell you to stfu about it.
If you think the president sucks, by all means, tell us! If you think he's a great president, then by all means, suck his blam! Just don't let me tell you to stfu about it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-20 at 23:09:18
QUOTE(PCFredZ @ Sep 18 2005, 02:30 PM)
4 reasons this thread isn't heading anywhere.
1. Lefts like us already know Bush is an idiot
2. Rights like S.T.A.R.S.-Chris will back up Bush no matter what anybody says
[right][snapback]316741[/snapback][/right]
1. Lefts like us already know Bush is an idiot
2. Rights like S.T.A.R.S.-Chris will back up Bush no matter what anybody says
[right][snapback]316741[/snapback][/right]
I'm conservative and I think bush is doing a crap job. Don't generalize.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KrAzY on 2005-09-20 at 23:11:31
When George W. Bush Jr. said he said Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, he lied and it's not at Iraq at all.
When George Bush Sr. said he will make No New Taxes, guess what, there's new taxes.
When George Bush Sr. said he will make No New Taxes, guess what, there's new taxes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-20 at 23:15:11
A president lying? BLASPHEMY!!!
i've never heard of such a thing! [/sarcasm]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-09-20 at 23:21:01
QUOTE(Demaris @ Sep 20 2005, 10:08 PM)
I'm conservative and I think bush is doing a crap job. Don't generalize.
[right][snapback]318620[/snapback][/right]
Huh? He didn't generalize, He said "Rights" LIKE Chris, Not necessarily all rights.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-20 at 23:22:06
I interpreted it as him saying Chris was a right, and that rights support bush. Maybe you are right.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ViolentMoose on 2005-09-20 at 23:39:06
QUOTE(ViolentJ @ Sep 20 2005, 09:35 AM)
guys leave bush alone. and stop complaining and critising him its annoying theres about 20 topics about how we hate bush 5+ pages on all of them its really annoying im not flaming any 1 im just saying stop acting like kids and live with it we got him for 3 more yrs just chill out
[right][snapback]318044[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]318044[/snapback][/right]
did any 1 even read this
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-20 at 23:44:59
Yeah, we did. We just think it is short-sighted and boring.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ViolentMoose on 2005-09-20 at 23:53:01
but its very annoying seeing people whine like little kids over it im getting sick of it..i just want to yell at them to STFU
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-20 at 23:57:13
Yeah, i agree.
Whining = STFU n00b!
Legitimate points = rare on SEN.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ViolentMoose on 2005-09-21 at 00:01:15
finnaly some one agrees with me.this topic should be closed because theres 20 other topics like it which = spam
spam = retarded crap
no spam = good
spam = retarded crap
no spam = good