Bush And Tax

[Rat Faced]

One of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent.

To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

The alleged lie in question was the statement:

"The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."


This was from his last Presidential Campaign, the Tax Cuts have been implemented and so people should know the results.

I am no expert of US Domestic Policy, as you know.

Therefore a simple question, yes or no answer.

Was this statement correct?

Please bear in mind that he never said "The Majority" which would indicate more than 50% would go to the "bottom end of the spectrum", he said "vast majority"... I would therefore expect at least 75% to be going to the "bottom end of the spectrum".


Being no expert, I looked for some company that could not be called "liberal" that had commented, and found the reference to Deloitte & Touche... not noted for their "Liberalism".

A report is reputed to have stated:

A report figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent

I have not seen the report itself, merely these figures quoted from it, likewise it was a report commisioned before implementation, so more correct figures should now be available.


To me that report meant that "The bottom end of the spectrum" ie bottom 50% to be very liberal received less than 10% (assuming that the 50%-60% received a whopping 2.6% )

This is a far cry from the "Majority" (50%+), never mind "Vast Majority" (say 75%+)...


There is obviously lots of scope to debate... actual figures will now be available, as i stated.

At the end of the day though....

A Yes or No answer....

Was Mr Bush being Economical with the Truth?

[j2k4]

I am mulling whether to respond; I assure you it will receive my every consideration, but I am "other-directed" at the moment.

I am applying on-line for my tax-I.D. number, and the site assures me I will be a couple of hours merely fighting through the application process.

After that is done, I have to get busy.

Ironic, I guess, that I am stayed by dreaded capitalism.

I suppose I shall emerge with horns and a pointed-tail.

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 April 2004 - 17:59
I suppose I shall emerge with horns and a pointed-tail.

I thought you already had those.

I know you were expecting this, I didn't want you to be disappointed.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx+30 April 2004 - 15:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 30 April 2004 - 15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 April 2004 - 17:59
I suppose I shall emerge with horns and a pointed-tail.

I thought you already had those.

I know you were expecting this, I didn&#39;t want you to be disappointed. [/b][/quote]
It is well to be known, lynx.

[clocker]

Regarding the effects of his tax cut, as well as many other major issues of his Presidency, Bush has merely employed his favorite tactic- the BIG LIE.

Doggedly insisting on stating "facts" that fly in the face of reason, experience and logic is standard Bush MO and sadly, it seems to work for him.

George Orwell would be proud ( and probably disgusted as well).

[vidcc]

Image Resized
[img]http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/tax.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

[j2k4]

Now-

Let&#39;s see if I can do this in a nice italicized blue cyber-ink without making a hash of it.

QUOTE
One of Bush&#39;s biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report figured that 42.6 percent of Bush&#39;s &#036;1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent.

To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of &#036;22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush&#39;s waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

The alleged lie in question was the statement:

"The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

This was from his last Presidential Campaign, the Tax Cuts have been implemented and so people should know the results.

I am no expert of US Domestic Policy, as you know.

Therefore a simple question, yes or no answer.

Was this statement correct?

Please bear in mind that he never said "The Majority" which would indicate more than 50% would go to the "bottom end of the spectrum", he said "vast majority"... I would therefore expect at least 75% to be going to the "bottom end of the spectrum".

Actually, Rat, while you have requested a "yes or no" answer, I can only give you the truth.

The statement is true, so the answer would be "yes".

The statement is also textbook political doublespeak (very nicely rendered and executed, too, BTW), which means that it takes some liberties with reality.

Follow me now:

"The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

The "vast majority" is the sheer number of taxpayers occupying the "bottom-end" of the spectrum, by which he actually means those who are not rich, which in turn means almost everybody.

The liberty taken refers the actual monies involved, and it is most assuredly also true that the vast bulk of the money returned accrues to the rich.

This is of course true because they pay the corresponding bulk of those monies and are hence due a larger cut, in absolute dollars.

It is also true that, while the less-well-off receive a smaller return (in absolute dollars), that return is more significant to that person because he/she has fewer dollars to begin with, and the opposite is true with regard to the rich, because they are, after all, rich.

Being no expert, I looked for some company that could not be called "liberal" that had commented, and found the reference to Deloitte & Touche... not noted for their "Liberalism".

A report is reputed to have stated:

QUOTE
A report figured that 42.6 percent of Bush&#39;s &#036;1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent

I have not seen the report itself, merely these figures quoted from it, likewise it was a report commisioned before implementation, so more correct figures should now be available.

To me that report meant that "The bottom end of the spectrum" ie bottom 50% to be very liberal received less than 10% (assuming that the 50%-60% received a whopping 2.6% )

This is a far cry from the "Majority" (50%+), never mind "Vast Majority" (say 75%+)...

I believe this is all borne out and explained above.

It is a sad commentary that, in this day and age, politicians of any stripe are forestalled by campaigning and electioneering from speaking clearly and plainly.

I guess my point would be that, were we discussing a liberal/Democrat politician, we could very easily be having this same discussion, the only difference being which shoes we were wearing.

In the end, the tactics deemed necessary to get elected these days make fools of us all, certainly not least the politicians.

It makes me sick, it surely does, but the simple fact is that I would be just a little bit sicker if a liberal Democrat said the same thing, and that is the true bottom line; it all comes back to your political philosophy, and what you do or don&#39;t agree with.

There is obviously lots of scope to debate... actual figures will now be available, as i stated.

At the end of the day though....

A Yes or No answer....

Was Mr Bush being Economical with the Truth?

In the end, Rat, you don&#39;t get your "yes" or your "no";
but, as I don&#39;t track the campaigning in the U.K., I have no way of telling if you will understand what I posit here, or if I may have just delivered a lesson in American politics.

As to your last, I suppose I could placate you to some extent by saying, "Yes, Rat; it would certainly appear Mr.Bush was being economical with the truth.

Next question, please?


EDIT: I should note here that a Democrat would have instituted some redistributive methodology by which the rich could be deprived of their money so as to enhance the prospects of the rest; that this is not the case with Bushes tax cut is a cornerstone of Conservatism: You are not entitled to that which you do not earn.

Except for "Earned Income Credit", which I won&#39;t get into here.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 May 2004 - 21:08
a cornerstone of Conservatism: You are not entitled to that which you do not earn.

doesn&#39;t that statement clash with the very premise of capitalism? the employer is entitled to that which the employees earn for him. &#39;course, you might say the employee earns his wage and nothing more. but then, who&#39;s earning the profits? for instance, a person might profit from owning stock and otherwise sitting around twiddling his thumbs. does that count as earning?

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4 @ 3 May 2004 - 21:08)
a cornerstone of Conservatism: You are not entitled to that which you do not earn.


doesn&#39;t that statement clash with the very premise of capitalism?

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;

the employer is entitled to that which the employees earn for him.

Yes, because the employer puts his own fortune at risk funding an effort to increase his wealth, the by-product of which enriches others through their work in his employ.

&#39;course, you might say the employee earns his wage and nothing more. but then, who&#39;s earning the profits? for instance, a person might profit from owning stock and otherwise sitting around twiddling his thumbs. does that count as earning?

Yes, it does.

Money creates more money when it is put to "work"; it is this effort that creates jobs for people to earn a living.

If I have &#036;1000, I can put it under the mattress, and in ten years (provided my house doesn&#39;t burn down), I&#39;ll still have it.

If I put it to work (risk it) by investing it, the profit I might gain (likewise the loss I might incur) should be my own to enjoy/bemoan.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by 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.