What Dick & Tom won't tell you about G.W.'s Tax Cut

My own research on the subject | 09/09/01 | taildragger

[taildragger]

Folks I got to tell you I am in a bit of a quandry. I downloaded a synopsis of the Tax Relief act of 2001 and now the link is gone. I am looking for a Tax Professional who is a CPA who is a member of NATP who an get a copy of the .pdf file and potentially post it. I have a copy of the orginial but I don't know how who post it. It is 15 pages long.

I have read the synopsis and it is quit revealing. What is in it, vs. what Un-Poco-Loco-DICKO is saying i.e. bla, bla, bla ,tax cuts for the rich is truly amazing. The 2 catagories that stand out in my mind are those who want to save for retirement and those who want to send there kids to school. I look foward to your helpful responses.

[taildragger]

Bump !!!!

[taildragger]

P.S. I will be indisposed until 10 pm tommorrow evening the 10th, I will lerk for potential answers. all help appreciated. WE need to get the truth out about all that is good in this bill!!!! It is much better than the punditry and tha talking heads are saying !!!!

[Tuco-bad]

2/3rds of Bush's tax cut goes to the top 5% of taxpayers.

That's all you need to know about Bush's tax cut, and why the tax cut won't help the economy.

[LenS]

Wrong. Tax cuts in the highest brackets are the ones that truly stimulate the economy as they free up the most wealth for investment in the economy. Tax cuts to the poorer end, while good, are more likely to reduce debt and increase consumption. Second, since the wealthiest tax payers are already paying the most tax dollars, any tax cut will involve more dollars to them and thus will take a greater percentage of the overall dollars. That's simple common sense and basic percentage math. Many people don't pay federal income tax anymore (they do pay state and local taxes plus FICA taxes). In fact, many get a disguised welfare payment with the Earned Income Credit. It's hard to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes.

[RandyRep]

Not exactly. 100% of the 2001 tax rebate goes to 100% of the income tax taxpayers.

In the out years, the marginal rates decline in 1% increments and then the top income producers (who pay most of the taxes) get a small reduction in the income being confiscated by the gummint. I figure that the 'rats will change the tax code before anybody sees any of these benefits.

[Red Jones]

The Wall Street Journal says that Bush' tax cut is insignificant and will not affect the economy. The Wall Street Journal is as Republican a newspaper as there is. Bush' tax program is an insult in that it merely exists to bolster his image and for no other reason. I read that under Bush' plan the death tax will be eliminated in 2011 and then be reinstated in 2012. None of his tax cuts will be in effect for more than 3-4 years. I read also that a large portion of the rebate is just an advance on next year's regularly scheduled rebate and the only reason we're getting it is because some democrats proposed it at the last minute. I'm hoping Bush will be a one termer quite frankly. I regret voting for him.

In 1978 the Republicans were merely 35-40% of the House, today they are 50% of course. But in 1978 a radical conservative Republican named Sam Steiger proposed a large capital gains tax cut. The bill passed and Jimmy Carter signed it into law. This happened because Sam Steiger and others promoted the legislation in congress, they sold lots of democrats on the idea that the tax cut would create jobs. George Bush doesn't have the integrity, nor the testicles quite frankly, to do what Sam Steiger did in 1978.

[IncPen]

The Wall Street Journal is as Republican a newspaper as there is.

Red, for the record, the Editorial Page of the WSJ is as Republican as the media gets.

The rest of the paper is written by snarling proto-marxists.

Who do you wish you'd voted for?

Gore?

[Red Jones]

Yeah, the editorial page of the WSJ criticized Bush tax cut as I said and is very republican. The rest of the articles in WSJ are not of the same bent, true.

I voted for Bush and I do regret it. In 2004 I won't vote Dem in the presidential race, but if Bush is on the ballot I surely won't vote Republican. I do not think the nation would be worse off with Al Gore as president as compared to Bush. I think that if the Democrats were to make a strong surge due to hotheads like me refusing to vote Republican, then I think there'd be a very strong backlash against these democrats in 2-4 years after their surge. However, as long as the conservatives are voting Republican there will be no substantial change in our government. If the conservatives withdraw their support from the Republicans, then the Republicans will either become conservative or they will be rendered irrelevant. George Bush and the Republicans must pretend to be conservatives to win. Ronald Reagan proved that a conservative group could rule. But the Republicans are not conservative, therefore the conservatives only destroy all their vitality by voting Republican.

[DeaconBenjamin]

Funny, I recall a Republican activist celebrating Clinton's pending election in 1992 using this same logic. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[elephantlips]

From a purely practical point of view, George W. cannot make the changes we conservatives would like to see as fast as we would like to see them. Incrementally we got here and incrementally is the only way out with the congress the way it is. Congress greatly effected the tax bill as we see it now. Even RINOs altered what GW wanted. Like it or not, this is what he got passed and at least it's a start.

[stylin19a]

Not exactley. Since I claimed my son on my tax return, HE did not get a refund/rebate/advance ( whatever it's being called these days), even tho he paid way more tax than the exemption i claimed for him. So 100% doesn't go to 100%.

[Red Jones]

we're not going to get anywhere if our leaders don't at least try to lead us. Reagan's strategy in 81 was to force his opponents to oppose his proposals so that he could get them un-elected. The strategy worked big time because in 1980 the Republicans and more importantly interest groups sympathetic to the Republicans were extremely aggressive about attacking democrats with negative ads in the campaigns. The Democrats were truly afraid and that is why they caved in and supported Reagan's radical legislation of 1981. Bush doesn't even try to propose anything radical. His changes are so insignificant as to matter none to anyone. The democrats have nothing to fear because Bush' type of Country Club Republican doesn't believe in aggressive negative campaign ads. In 81 Reagan had a weaker position in congress than Bush does today and yet Reagan attacked. Bush cowers. Big difference between the two. Don't blame radicals like me for the demise of the Republicans, blame the Republicans.

[nobdysfool]

So, let the DemoRats have it, just to spit in the eye of the Republicans? That's real intelligent! NOT!!!

I think the real thing is, no one is talking about the elephant in the room. What is really going on is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly want to be honest about what's really going on, which is the creeping Socialism that is taking over our country. They keep talking about the "lockbox" for Social Security, which is a bald-faced lie! It's a smokescreen to hide the fact that they really do think that ALL the money we earn is theirs, every last cent! The refusal of GWB and the rest of the Republican leadership to quit lying to us and tell us the truth is proof enough that they are all complicit in the perpetration of the quiet takeover of America. "Little Dick" and "Puff" are lying, they know they're lying, they willfully choose to continue to lie because it's all about retaining power. They do not care about any of us as individuals, as anything other than wallets to continue to supply them with money to maintain power and influence, and to lord it over the rest of us. The policies of Congress are designed to do one thing: extract the maximum amount of money possible without causing an insurgence, and then after the money has been exhausted, to kick us once more when we're gone, via the "death tax", if we have been fortunate enough in spite of the ruinous taxation our incomes have been subjected to, to have accumulated enough money to pass on to our loved ones to ease their burden.

[clodkicker]

I was expecting insight from Tom & Dick Smothers

[Dick Bachert]

[nobdysfool]

More like Dumb and Dumber....

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You certainly seem to be dragging your tail on this. :-)

[nobdysfool]

I was expecting insight from Tom & Dick Smothers

Couldn't be any worse that what we're getting from "Little Dick" and "Puff", aka Dumb and Dumber...

[Brasil]

While Republicans promote tax cuts to working people who actually pay taxes and then use the money returned to buy, invest and stimulate, the RATS want to take money from those who work for it and give it to people who buy lotto tickets--now there's a real black hole.