Bush And Tax

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+4 May 2004 - 00:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 4 May 2004 - 00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 May 2004 - 22:18
No, it clashes with liberalism, which posits that government may expand it&#39;s role of Robin Hood beyond any necessary or sensible measure by giving so much to the "poor", it deprives the "poor" of any impetus to ever be anything other than...poor&#33;

have you never seen Robin Hood work in reverse?

for instance, Bush&#39;s involvement in the Texas Rangers baseball team, which was marked by a series of schemes that served to enrich himself and his fellow Rangers owners at the expense of the city of Arlington, taxpayers, and the victims of a land-grab perpetrated ostensibly for a new ballpark.

turnabout is only fair play, i guess. but in rewarding him for his behavior during that time, Arlington deprived GWB of the impetus to be anything but a conniving bully who siphons money from the government toward his friends and business partners. [/b][/quote]
I abhor the practice of milking the public to finance sports venues.

It happens everywhere, though.

[Rat Faced]

As i said earlier, I have no idea on US Tax, therefore give me some leaway here....


The Tax Cuts were sopposedly aimed at "The bottom End of the spectrum"... therefore i assume basic tax rate was looked at, so thats what i&#39;ll look at here.

If we assume, for the sake of arguement and simplicity:

say 100,000 "poor" @ &#036;20,000 pa

6,000 "well off" @ say &#036;50,000 pa

1,000 "rich" @ say &#036;100,000 pa

like i said, im not taking multi-millionaires etc into account yet..just normal "employees"..

then we assume that theres a &#036;10,000 dollar "no tax" allowance, and the remainder @ 25% Tax (again, just to keep it simple for now)

Then the tax paid for each segment of that population is:

Poor pay &#036;250,000,000 total
Middle Income pay &#036;60,000,000 total
Higher pay &#036;900,000 total.

With a 1% reduction in basic tax therefore; the poor actually benefit with not only the "most" taxpayers benefiting, but most of the money.... a hugely greater proportion, also going to that group of Taxpayers.

In this case:
Poor would benefit to the tune of &#036;10,000,000
Middle by comparison would only gain &#036;400,000
and the well off by &#036;900,000.

As I said, simplistic...however its complicated by the fact that there are higher tax rates as people get paid more, which actually exasperates this rather than closing the gap. Raising the Rates of pay before you pay higher tax also benefits the poorer rather than the richer.....



In order for the top 1% of earners to benefit so much from the Tax cuts, the Low Paid would get nothing, and the Middle Income not a lot...


and Mr Bushes mythical Waitress demonstrates this.

She was on &#036;22,000 pa.

After the Tax Cuts she would have paid nothing....

Except; well it has been pointed out by the accountants.....she wouldnt have paid anything anyway before the Tax Cuts.


Could you therefore enlighten me as to the annual salary someone would be getting in order to actually gain anything?

And also, how far "up the spectrum" was this in 2000?

At what amount does "The bottom end of the spectrum" start (and indeed finish)?


As has been shown, it must finish at a point higher than &#036;22,000, as people below this never benefited at all......

[j2k4]

Once again I am fucked for time.

Rat-

Your calculations indicate a misapprehension of the situation here in the U.S.;

Plug some figures into the table indicated here-

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

[Rat Faced]

I did say it was simplistic.

However we need simplistic to look at the results.

Your argument states that the vast majority equates to the shear number of taxpayers at the bottom end of the spectrum.

If its basic taxes that were cut, then this holds true.... Ive demonstrated that in this case, due to the shear number of taxpayers, the bulk of the money would go there too.

If its not basic taxes that were cut, then the argument falls, as the "vast majority" of taxpayers arent included in the tax cuts and so the money does not go to them.

In order for so much money to go to the Rich, and to a lesser extent the Middle Income bracket, he must have ignored "Bottom End of The Spectrum" almost completely.


As you wanted to put my mythical population into those Tax Brackets though:

Tax Paid:

Poorest = &#036;264,985,000
Middle = &#036;57,357,600
Richest = &#036;22,913,320

Assuming a cut of 1% at the basic level to 9% only:

Poorest = &#036;257,985,000 .......... A saving of &#036;7,000,000
Middle = &#036;56,937,600 .......... A saving of &#036;420,000
Richest = &#036;22,843,320 ......... A saving of &#036;70,000

Assuming a cut of 1% in all Tax Brackets, not just the lowest, which means that the "lowest End of the Spectrum" get less.....

Poorest = &#036;244,986,000 ...... A saving of &#036;19,999,000
Middle = &#036;47,241,720 ........... A saving of &#036;10,115,880
Rich = &#036;20,731,350 ...............A saving of &#036;2,181,970


Notice that the Rich are considerably better off, however most of the money still goes to the lowest end of the spectrum due to their shear numbers.


For a Tax cut to put so much of the pie into the hands of the rich, no amount of spin can say that "Most of the Tax Cuts will go to the Bottom end of the Spectrum"... The cuts would have to be in brackets they werent in to start with, therefore are excluded.


As ive already stated, the mythical waitress he used as an example, didnt benefit by one cent and she was on &#036;22,000. I assume there were a lot of people on or on less than &#036;22,000 that never benefited at all.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ll weigh back in as time allows-I&#39;m done with work tomorrow for three weeks (yippee), but I&#39;ll be frightfully busy.

[Mathea]

I have to say the figures look right.... though I dont know much about the taxes.... Im still waitin for ur reply j2k4 bc Im sure u know better than I do about it...(this is the first year for me filing and I had my boss do it for me)

[j2k4]

As usual lately, I&#39;m only here for a bit, not enough time to jump in with both feet.

I have looked for, but cannot find, a proper breakdown of numbers with which to populate the various tax margins.

I&#39;ll pick away at it as I can.

[Rat Faced]

*Unashamed Bump*

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 May 2004 - 12:17
*Unashamed Bump*

Sounds like an ultimatum to me....do you have an impatient tapping foot going on as well?

[Rat Faced]