Bush And Tax

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

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

Quote:

---

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. :P

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

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).

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


:lol:

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. ;)

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......

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

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.


:)

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. ;)

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)

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. ;)

*Unashamed Bump*

Quote:

---

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? :lol:

:rolleyes:

:-"

....Oh-sorry&#33;

Were you waiting for me?

Honestly, Rat, I&#39;ve totally lost interest in numbers relative to taxes, as I have become so totally immersed in them doing my own books, I dare not confuse myself further by entertaining the question anymore.

I will concede the point, whatever it may have been. :)