2 of nation's richest oppose Bush tax plan

So much for the "the liberal opponents of this are just unsuccessful socialists who just want to redistribute wealth that doesn't belong to them" argument.

It really shouldn't take a billion to know that elimanating taxes on dividends would mostly benefit the rich. I mean, how much would the average person here save vs. how much someone with significant ownership of stocks save? The gap is enormous.

I really gotta give props to the president though for not only conceiving this, but also actually selling it to America.

If Bush really wanted to help the economy he would raise the inheritance tax to 100% for anything over say $1 million 2001 dollars. This would give rich people big incentives to spend their money as opposed to hording it. Through their spending the money would find ways to redistribute itself in the economy, thus fueling more spending. Of course this only works if they don't put in inane loopholes for the rich.

Not that hard to sell anything to the US public. They are generally more stupid than the guy running things right now. Plus, most people in congress are fairly wealthy and will generally see benefits from this tax cut. No brainer on their part.

The funniest part about this is the tax cut comes after a lot of people have pulled their money out of the stock market. Only the rich fat cats on wall street are left. Thankfully a few have the heart and balls to tell people how stupid the tax cut is.

A phrase Bush Sr. once coined comes to mind, "voodoo economics".

Hell, look at all the jobs Dubya's last tax cut created...

<crickets chirping, tumblweeds roll by...>

As if the argument held any water in the first place.

Doesn't stop people from saying it even now, like that really creepy guy who appeared on Bill Maher who runs commercials harassing Republican Sen. Voinovich by flying Frecnh flags around him. This guy basically admitted that he'd do virtually anything to see "the president's" tax cut pass.

Tax laws hurt my head. I honestly don't have the time to pour over Bush's proposal, see who i sbenifited and how, and come to a logical conclusion.

Having said that, I am generally in favor of tax cuts and smaller governments, and would like to see us go to a flat-percentage tax system.

I'm also a fan of TRUE tax cuts that give money to the people who paid it in the first place.

But the Bush plan is not a tax cut. It is a tax shift. It shifts the tax burden on state and local governments, which must raise taxes accordingly because - unlike the Federal government - by law, they must balance their budgets.

Also, it unfairly passes on the burden to our children and whoever else is paying taxes for the years to come, as they'll have to assume the massive debt the US is building up.

It's a card game that's not even that leaborate, but it fools millions anyway.

What can I say? Those who haven't figured it out yet will do so sooner or later.

It's good to see someone else who will directly benefit from such a tax cut opposing it.

This all happened in Alberta a few years ago, and I see a lot of similarities between your tax cut plan and ours, so I think I understand what Bush is talking about.

I missed saving about $25 000 in taxes by weeks because of changes to our Capital Gains Tax. If I'm making money such that I'd save that kind of cash, I must've made a fair chunk of change. Complaining about not having more strikes me as the height of greed. Do you feel sorry for me? I don't feel sorry for me, I feel lucky.

Then Nortel cratered, taking pretty much everything electronics related in Calgary with it. I haven't worked in two years. My tax bill this year was $6000, and that's a much harsher blow -right now- then $60 000 was when all was sweetness and light. Saving $1000 this year would mean much more to me right now than saving $10 000 would've only three years ago.

I've been both a big* fish and a small fish in the tax cut pond, and the big fish are better off. When it comes to day-to-day survival at any rate. Trust me.

I understand the idea that massive corporate savings can be turned around into improving the lot of Da Vorker, i.e., the economy, but it just doesn't work that way. It could happen, but it doesn't. Not often. Not in the boardrooms of the really big companies anyway. But personal dividends? Huh? My boss was a multi-millionaire. If he saved a bundle on his personal taxes, would he use that to my benefit? Probably not. And why should he?

Big tax cuts sound good on paper, but they don't behave as advertised. They never have. Never. When will people understand this? It's not just about ideology, it's about results. Been there. Done it. Tax cuts for the middle class are more important in troubled times. Corporations are quite capable of trickling profits down without government help if they choose to, and personal wealth is personal so no one should expect the wealthy to spend their after-tax money in any particular way. Also, your government could probably use the cash. Got a peace war to run, right? This tax cut will NOT improve your economy. It wouldn't in general, and it won't now in particular.

If I'm wrong, hooray! Everybody wins.

*Not that big. Not millionaire big. But certainly better off than most 28 year old suburban white kids.

I don't think that having Warren Buffet and George Soros against the tax package is newsworthy. You could probably get something that says "2 of nation's poorest support the Bush tax plan" and I would have the same reaction - true, but who cares?

It will get passed, in one form or another, and I am happy about it because i'm all for lower taxes.

That makes no sense. The nation's poorest would almost be definition be poorly educated. These two guys are not just bright, they're damn bright. They understand this sham.

And your last sentence is indicative of the problem in America. You don't care if the tax cut helps, hurts, or who it benefits. You just hear those two words and voila! you support it.

This is exactly why Bush has been able to pass tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich. Anytime he mentions tax cut, the majority of people fail to look at what taxes are being cut and who benefits from it.
Hell, he could probably put a bill in to congress to cut income taxes for anyone who makes over a million dollars a year, and it would pass with attitudes like this. How would that benefit anyone but those who already have all the money they will ever need? This is basically what this new tax cut does anyway, it just isn't as straight forward as my hypothetical example is.

But you're for higher state and local taxes, and crippling cuts to public works, education, and the arts, in addition to a spiraling national deficit and the very real spectre of deflation looming over the horizon?

This tax shift and the loosening of television station ownership standards by the FCC make me proud to be an american.

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030522/media_nm/industry_fcc_dc_1" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030522/media_nm/industry_fcc_dc_1</a>

Ah, the old "tax cuts for the rich" class warfare idea. Is it really just a tax cut for the rich? Let's take a look at the pieces of it:
Marriage penalty repeal: affects all married couples, except those who pay no taxes
Increased child tax credit: affects all people with children, falling more on those in the lower brackets, as they traditionally have more children than the rich and super-rich
Acceleration of the marginal rate reductions: affects all people, except those who do not pay taxes
Dividend and capital gains reductions: while the poorer people do not have stocks, this segment gives the poor a lower rate (5%) than the rich (15%). The advantage theoretically falls more on the poor (likely senior citizens rather than the truly destitute), however, it will put more money in the hands of the rich.

Farbeit for me to say that that doesn't look like a "tax cut for the rich," but that doesn't look like a tax cut for the rich.

Why should the federal government be responsible for bailing out the states when they get in financial trouble? The only thing states will learn from that is that there is always someone who will bail them out when they get in trouble. They will continue to raise spending without the funds to cover it, and the feds will continually have to shell out more money to keep them afloat. Let them cut their budgets that were bloated from all those boom years that allowed them to get fat.

What does deflation have to do with tax cuts? Will they actually increase the possibility of deflation? Generally, increasing spending and decreasing taxes increases the money supply in a market, reducing the threat of deflation.

Dare I say that Devin is discriminating against the poor?
Keep in mind that there are many, many old people that fall into this bracket. Of course, I suppose that those who go to public school and those who are old must be poorly educated.

Were the previous responses well-reasoned-out-enough for you?

That part of the tax plan IS ridiculous. In fact, the whole (insert number here) tax cut idea is ridiculous. They put all kinds of loopholes, expirations, sunset clauses, hikes, and everything except the kitchen sink to make a tax cut be whatever number they think it is palatable. Really, no tax cut has ever been the same amount as advertised. If there is some other way to express the tax cut without using phony numbers (which all multi-year projections are), I would love to see it.

</strong>

Yeah, let those homeland security initiatives go unfunded and let those police departments stay underfunded. That'll teach those silly victims of the resulting crime and possible terrorist attack a lesson!

And those schoolkids going to the public schools with skeletal budgets and reduced staffs...that'll learn them.

Don't you see this hurts more than just "greedy states"? There are people who live in them that had NOTHING to do with the wasteful spending that will pay the price for it nonetheless.

But who cares about them, right?

Ahh...but where's the financial increase? A smattering more of funds in your paycheck from July 1 onward? Is that really going to make an average family increase their spending or will it cause them to pad their savings being that they live in a horrid employment market under a stagnant economy where they could lose their jobs any second?

Just fucking shameful. When a ceiling is placed on the tax plan, the first thing to go is benefits for the people who really need them, while rich people can continue to buy and sell stock without having to worry about being taxed on it.

Despicable but somehow not shocking at all.

There is absolutely no reason why that child credit couldn't have been included for low income people. For shame.

The most likely justification they used for cutting the credit for lower income families is that those particular families already receive Earned Income Credit so they're getting "free money" for their kids twice.

The credit is also being phased out for high income families.

If it's just a handout from the federal government (i.e., you aren't paying anything, but you are getting a check anyway), then I can see why that would be the case.

Yeah, fuck those stupid lazy poor people. I mean, it's not like anybody's been laid off in the past two years, right? Serves 'em right for being poor!

Well, the child tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit. For example, you end up owing $150 and have one kid. the $500 tax credit would wipe out the $165 owed, but you would NOT receive the excess $350. And since the tax is wiped out, you would receive all of your withholding back.

Earned Income Credit, however, IS a refundable tax credit. Imagine the same scenario as above, but include $600 in EIC. Since the tax is wiped out by the Child Tax Credit, you'll receive all of your withholding back (naturally) in addition to the $600 in EIC.

Did I explain that well enough?

So I guess my question would be, "do you apply the child tax credit first, then the EIC?" I really don't have a problem with poor people getting their taxes back. If they are still paying taxes as a result of not getting the child tax credit, whereas they wouldn't be if they got the full amount, that's one thing. If the child tax credit would be applied first, followed by the EIC, and as a result, the feds were paying them instead of no money exchanging hands, that's another thing all together. I just don't agree with using taxes as a tool to rob from the rich and give to the poor, so to speak.

Yes. As it is a non-refundable credit, the child tax credit is taken from the "preliminary" (for lack of a better word) tax amount to arrive at TOTAL tax due. Once the total tax is computed the other reductions (withholding, EIC, etc) are taken.

Only problem is that this tax cut is robbing from the poor to pay the rich in the form of dividend breaks.

Meanwhile, the poor are getting shafted on the child deal, they're sending their kids to schools with rising tuition and reduced budgets, they're getting higher local and state taxes, and badly needed infrastructure projects are being delayed to pay for federally-mandated initiatives like Homeland Security.

Absolutely. This tax package is so far off-track that I'm surprised there are no riots in Washington right now. And if there were I'd be in favor of the rioters.

Personally, I'm not a rioter.

Any tax credits/relief for California residents gets absorbed by our States' fiscal problems anyway so...

Oh BTW: This is one vote I can safely say my Rep and Senators voted against. In fact the next time I see Robert Matsui I'm going to ask him about it. I do see him from time to time in the course of both my job and shopping at one of our local grocers.

I agree that i'm baffled by this tax package. A big big mistake by this administration. Get ready to pay the price come vote time.

Maybe, Maybe not. I think a lot of people are still blinded by this whole war on terrorism bull-shit. It certainly has surprised me a little bit just how far Bush has been able to ride that train. He may ride it again to victory if the Democrats don't come up with a worthy opponent.

The deficit may not be as bad as everybody has thought:

Ordinary Americans and their employers are socking away huge sums in tax-deferred accounts such as Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k)s, and traditional pensions. The total in such accounts is roughly $11 trillion today, with hundreds of billions in new contributions pouring in every year. Under current law, retirees will pay ordinary income taxes as they withdraw money from these accounts. Surprisingly, official long-term budget estimates ignore most of these projected tax receipts -- and the amounts are simply staggering.

In a new, as-yet-unpublished paper, Stanford University economist Michael J. Boskin estimates that the value of these deferred taxes through 2040 is roughly $12 trillion in today's dollars. By comparison, the official estimate of the unfunded Social Security liability is $3.5 trillion in today's dollars, while the unfunded Medicare liability for hospital insurance is $5.9 trillion. Boskin, who served as chief of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Bush Administration and was a key economic adviser to George W. Bush in his 2000 campaign, concludes that much of the anticipated long-term budget gap may not exist -- if current tax laws remain on the books.

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_26/b3839032.htm" target="_blank">Business Week - A Tax Windfall Ahead</a>

I'm no economist, but doesn't this rosey view of the Incredible Shriking Budget Deficit rely on the government not spending THAT surplus just as we spent the current surplus projected when Bush took office? Those dollars MAY cover additional Social Security and Medicare costs, but I'd wager they'll be eaten up before they actually manifest through a variety of means.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26672-2003Jun6?language=printer" target="_blank">Capitalism's 'Deal' Falls Apart </a>

I posted the whole thing because I think its a really powerful editorial. People need to understand how shitty this "tax cut" is for the people who need the cuts the most.

The problem with this editorial is that the Bush tax cut was never presented as anything other than an income tax/dividend/capital gains tax. It was not a FICA tax cut. By definition, an income tax cut will cut the income tax, not payroll taxes. I would love to see some changes in the payroll taxes (especially killing the $72000 taxable cap on Social Security taxes), but that would be a different can of worms, because they are funding some serious entitlement programs.
One thing that nobody mentions is the AMT, something that effectively kills any tax cuts for the rich. The AMT prevents them from getting a windfall from marginal rate cuts or increasing tax credits/deductions.

</strong>

That's wrong, actually. This tax cut was presented as "The JOBS and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act"

More often than not, it punishes the middle class.

<a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Taxshelters/P33512.asp" target="_blank">http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Taxshelters/P33512.asp</a>

The rich can afford the shelters mentioned in this article to hide from it.