Bush Misleads On Fiscal Responsibilities

[Libertine]

In a speech Monday, President Bush advocated fiscal responsibility in government, saying, "we need to be wise about how we spend your money."[1] He is now poised, however, to sign into law a massive, $137-billion tax giveaway to corporate and special interests.[2]

The tax bill was originally created to fix a $50-billion export subsidy that had triggered retaliatory tariffs by our trading partners. Instead of simply repealing the subsidy, Congress replaced it with a $77-billion giveaway to corporations, many of which never qualified for the original subsidy.[3] It
also provides $43 billion in tax breaks for companies operating overseas,[4] including a giant break to top corporations like Hewlett-Packard and Eli Lilly that allows them "to bring hundreds of billions of dollars in untaxed foreign profits back into the United States at about one-seventh of the
normal tax rate."[5]

Lawmakers larded down the bill with pork for their favored special interests. The bill included million-dollar tax cuts for fishing tackle box manufacturers, Chinese ceiling fan importers, horse and dog track gamblers and Native Alaskan whaling captains.[6]

Sources:

1. "President and General Tommy Franks's Remarks at a Victory 2004 Rally in Morrison, Colorado," The White House, 10/11/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041011-13.html.
2. "Payback on K Street," Washington Post, 10/12/04, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25661-2004Oct11.html?sub=AR.
3. "Senate Passes Big Tax Breaks," Los Angeles Times, 10/12/04, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tax12oct12,1,2799970.story?coll=la-home-nation.
4. "Congress Gives Away the Store," New York Times, 10/12/04,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/opinion/12tue3.html.
5. "Senate passes $137 billion cut in business tax," Baltimore Sun, 10/12/04, http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.bz.corptax12oct12,1,2364071.story.
6. "Congress OKs corporate tax bill, hurricane disaster aid," Daily Herald, 10/12/04,
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=37156&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0.

[shade]

Can you please explain how taking less is a gift?

[Libertine]

Can you please explain how taking less is a gift?
Go figure.

[shade]

I am absolutely serious.

If I take your lunch money every day, and then let you keep half of it, why do you owe me a thank you letter?

This question is a fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative, and is in no way meant to be humorous.

[Libertine]

I am absolutely serious.

If I take your lunch money every day, and then let you keep half of it, why do you owe me a thank you letter?

This question is a fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative, and is in no way meant to be humorous.
What an analogy. Comparing a corporation to a schoolkid. Are you inferring that in some way the corporations were unable to eat their lunch and had no money left after the big bully of government snatched their dough? :icon_rofl ...and then he says he's serious.
Uh yeah if it helps ya through the night call it a "tax break" and no one will get mad if you don't say thank you.
Better analogy:
Shade has a lemonade stand in my yard but only because he agrees to give me a dime for every cup 'o juice he sells. Now I knock off 5 cents for every cup.

Point is Bush needs to do what he said "we need to be wise about how we spend your money." Guess you could say he's not spending it. :help:

[shade]

Taking less != gift.

Who pays corporate taxes?

[Libertine]

*edited ^^^ up there

[shade]

Shade has a lemonade stand in my yard but only because he agrees to give me a dime for every cup 'o juice he sells. Now I knock off 5 cents for every cup. How do I get the dime to give you?

[Libertine]

You got that dime because I let you sell on my (U.S) land. You thought about selling on your street (Cambodia) then realized you could sell more lemonade where I live.

[shade]

Nice dodge attempt.

Who gives me the dime that I give you.

This is not a trick question. The answer that looks most obvious to you is probably correct. It needs to come from your "lips" in order to be successful therapy to cure you of your "liberal" condition.

[Libertine]

Nice dodge attempt.

Who gives me the dime that I give you.
Cambodians if you dont like U.S money. (no dodge pay tax or sell on your street)
My neighbors give you the dime.

[shade]

My neighbors give you the dime. So who pays corporate taxes?

[Libertine]

Whoever's recieving the income.

[shade]

Who pays corporate taxes? Shade has a lemonade stand in my yard but only because he agrees to give me a dime for every cup 'o juice he sells. Now I knock off 5 cents for every cup. How do I get the dime to give you? My neighbors give you the dime. You were willing to accept previously that dividend tax and capital gains tax are bad. Why are you not willing to see what I am extremely clearly illustrating and that you are personally proving?

[Libertine]

You were willing to accept previously that dividend tax and capital gains tax are bad. Why are you not willing to see what I am extremely clearly illustrating and that you are personally proving?
Weren't we discussing estate tax as bad not capital gains? The issue in this thread is more of whether these cuts are good for this country right now, and Bush saying one thing and doing another.

[shade]

I thought you also said that dividend and capital gains tax cuts in fact stimulate the economy and are good. You specifically commented that for some reason US politicians are not in the loop on the topic, and I pointed out that apparently Bush is.

Still, do you not see the point? In your own words directly responding to my straight forward questions, consumers ultimately pay corporate taxes.

In fact, because it is paid for from revenue by selling products or services, it is no different than a sales tax. It is in fact, regressive.

[Libertine]

I thought you also said that dividend and capital gains tax cuts in fact stimulate the economy and are good. You specifically commented that for some reason US politicians are not in the loop on the topic, and I pointed out that apparently Bush is.

Still, do you not see the point? In your own words directly responding to my straight forward questions, consumers ultimately pay corporate taxes.

In fact, because it is paid for from revenue by selling products or services, it is no different than a sales tax. It is in fact, regressive.
So in all cases are the taxes on the consumer directly refelctive?

[shade]

Corporate income taxes are nothing other than an invisible, nickle and dime, cost of living increase, regressive tax. It is a sales tax that you do not conciously see.

If corporate income taxes were eliminated, prices would be directly reduced in a very short time in all industries that are not controlled by monopoly.

From previous conversations with you, I know that you have a good head on your shoulders. I believe you simply have not been exposed to the rock solid "conservative" economic logic, such as this, that is the core of conservative economic policy.

When it comes to what is good for the economy, I do not understand why it is a partisan issue. Economics is ultimately math, and trails of money. Aside from philosophical differences like "forced equality," actual economic policy such as forms of taxation are truely a matter of mathematics, cash flows, and logic. None of which should be partisan.

If you believe that regressive taxation is bad, then you must believe that corporate taxation and sales taxes are bad.

[Libertine]

Corporate income taxes are nothing other than an invisible, nickle and dime, cost of living increase, regressive tax. It is a sales tax that you do not conciously see.

If corporate income taxes were eliminated, prices would be directly reduced in a very short time in all industries that are not controlled by monopoly.

From previous conversations with you, I know that you have a good head on your shoulders. I believe you simply have not been exposed to the rock solid "conservative" economic logic, such as this, that is the core of conservative economic policy.

When it comes to what is good for the economy, I do not understand why it is a partisan issue. Economics is ultimately math, and trails of money. Aside from philosophical differences like "forced equality," actual economic policy such as forms of taxation are truely a matter of mathematics, cash flows, and logic. None of which should be partisan.

If you believe that regressive taxation is bad, then you must believe that corporate taxation and sales taxes are bad.
Points taken, I feel there's a lack of moderation. I feel this country needs a democrat at least every 8-12 years to straighten things up downstairs and balance the wealth in places conservatives for the most part refuse to go..

[shade]

Well, I dont understand how a liberal could support a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor more. In a regressive tax, the poor have a higher burden. That 2% increase in price hurts a poor person more than a rich person.

I am a "cold hearted conservative" and I am firmly against all forms of regressive taxation.

Ill be honest. This is the first time I have said this sentence. No liberal should support corporate taxation, and to do so is a lapse in logic that hurts the poor.

[Libertine]

Well, I dont understand how a liberal could support a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor more. In a regressive tax, the poor have a higher burden. That 2% increase in price hurts a poor person more than a rich person.

I am a "cold hearted conservative" and I am firmly against all forms of regressive taxation.

Ill be honest. This is the first time I have said this sentence. No liberal should support corporate taxation, and to do so is a lapse in logic that hurts the poor.
I'm a liberal? I'm actually American Independant.

[shade]

Correct me if I'm wrong, regressive tax is higher tax for the middle class as a whole than the upper class correct? Close. A regressive tax is one that hurts you less the more money you make. So it hurts the poor more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the rich.

Specifically, lets say you buy something that costs $1000. You have an 8% sales tax, which comes out to $80 for that product.

$80 / $20,000 = .4% "income tax" for someone earning $20k annually
$80 / $50,000 = .16% "income tax" for someone earning $50k annually
$80 / $200,000 = .04% "income tax" for someone earning $200k annually

The same is true for the corporate income tax. That tax is paid from income, which is the revenue left over after expenses. Thus, it is a percent of revenue if the firm is making any profit. It is a hidden sales tax. It is a percent of the sale. In fact, the more successful a corporation is, the higher their profit margin, and the more tax they pay. As such, it is an even higher sales tax on someone if they buy from a successful corporation!

[Libertine]

Close. A regressive tax is one that hurts you less the more money you make. So it hurts the poor more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the rich.

Specifically, lets say you buy something that costs $1000. You have an 8% sales tax, which comes out to $80 for that product.

$80 / $20,000 = .4% "income tax" for someone earning $20k annually
$80 / $50,000 = .16% "income tax" for someone earning $50k annually
$80 / $200,000 = .04% "income tax" for someone earning $200k annually

The same is true for the corporate income tax. That tax is paid from income, which is the revenue left over after expenses. Thus, it is a percent of revenue if the firm is making any profit. It is a hidden sales tax. It is a percent of the sale. In fact, the more successful a corporation is, the higher their profit margin, and the more tax they pay. As such, it is an even higher sales tax on someone if they buy from a successful corporation!
I see thank you. Yeah i was under the impression that regressive tax is where the middle/lower classes reap the largest amount of taxation through their numbers.

[shade]

Out of curiosity, do you still support corporate income taxes? I fully understand if you want to do more research of your own before coming to such an earth shattering decision.

But, assuming you cant find anything that conflicts with this, given what you know now, do you still believe that corporate income taxes are good?

[Libertine]

Out of curiosity, do you still support corporate income taxes? I fully understand if you want to do more research of your own before coming to such an earth shattering decision.

But, assuming you cant find anything that conflicts with this, given what you know now, do you still believe that corporate income taxes are good?
Not sure if I agree that the tax is paid for by the consumer. (I'm speed reading)

[Libertine]

The central problem with the corporate income tax from an economic point of view is that, ultimately, only people can pay taxes. Economists have had great difficulty in assessing the incidence of the corporate tax—that is, on which groups of people the burden falls. As early as the seventeenth century, Sir William Petty, one of the progenitors of modern economics, argued that a tax on the production and sale of commodities would eventually be shifted by producers to consumers, who would pay it in the form of higher prices. Later classical economists disagreed, contending that the tax fell on owners, making it, in effect, a tax on capital. They thought it could not be shifted since, theoretically, a corporation already charging prices that produce maximum profits could not increase prices further without reducing the amount of its goods that people demanded.


Hehe, good stuff.

[Snyper]

You know, I have been posting the fact that business do not pay taxes for quite some time here....why is it that nobody listened? I'm glad you were able to see it though shade, and that someone else is finially seeing it.

[shade]

Oh, Ive always known businesses dont pay taxes. I just never made the jump to it being regressive.

[droogsteve]

Oh, Ive always known businesses dont pay taxes.

Holy shit, is that true? I''ll be back, I'm going to shoot my accountant now. :mad: