Bush administration says tax plan opponents don't understand economy

SJ Mercury News ^ | 1/12/03 | AP - Washington

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House's lead salesman to Congress for the president's economic plan played down opposition from Senate Republicans, saying Sunday that the proposal is not fully understood.

The $674 billion plan would abolish federal taxes on stock dividends, speed up promised income tax cuts and send rebate checks to 34 million low- and middle-income parents. The 10-year package, all but $4 billion of it for cutting taxes, goes to Congress amid rising government deficits and as Democrats gear up to challenge President Bush's re-election bid.

[plain talk]

Why link it to SS reform? I thought the goal of the GOP was to get goverment out of our lives as much as possible? Who is the goverment to say what I do with my money?

The government is taking your money now in the form of the payroll tax to fund social security payouts. Can't cut the tax unless there's a plan on what to do on the benefit side of the equation. The whole program should be privatized. I'm talking pragmatics here. I'm not going to waste my time on a what-if-we-just-killed-social-security discussion. It's there. We're stuck with it.

[Dane]

I am on the GOP's side. And before you say that no one will castrate you if I say something about Daschle I must tell you that you are wrong. I have been told by posters on FR that they wish to have me killed.

Huh kinda of like Daschle, who said he was "getting death threats" from Rush Limbaugh listeners. You are very transparent (i.e trying to "make political points" with your disingenuousness(just like Daschle), IMHO.

No one is stopping your false martyrdom. America is a free country after all. Oblivious to the liberal media that you serve, IMHO.

[Karsus]

No. Like this poster (FF578) who said this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804190/posts?page=212#212
in response to this question
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804190/posts?page=201#201

Unlike Daschle I have proof.

[Karsus]

One area is WIC. I know some people who use WIC and they have no choice but to use the most expensive brand. The cheaper store brands (cheaper by more than 50%) can not be used with WIC. At least in Texas. Since formula is where WIC spends the most money, requiring the cheaper formula would save a lot of money.

[meenie]

You don't want to cut payroll taxes. This would leave less money for the Federalis to steal from the Social Security fund. What is wrong with cutting expenses and taking the savings to give a tax break for everybody? What is wrong with downsizing government and getting its nose out of everybody's business? What is wrong with using our public lands to bring in some income from grazing and timber? What is wrong with checking Gross's book and cutting fraud and abuse?

What about taking the credit cards away from government employees and letting them pay for their own luxuries? Why don't people get off their collective asses and demand that government shape up instead of waiting around for a tax cut that we will let our children and grandchildren pay? Because most of us are a bunch of whining socialists that are looking for a free lunch.

[winin2000]

And it falls squarely on the backs of folks with lower income. All to fund a Ponzi scheme that's bound to fail in the forseeable future.

But therein lies the rub, because no one seriously proposes a "payroll tax cut" in the sense that the fictional Social Security trust fund will be denied revenue. They simply favor low-income workers getting a transfer payment in the exact amount of their payroll taxes funded from general revenues, i.e. higher earners pay the tax for them.

That would far and away be the most dangerous precedent the government ever set. Fraud though it is, Social Security was marketed to us with the understanding that a worker's contributions today decide future benefits. In that sense, it is best compared to an insurance premium: defined contributions today for a defined benefit tomorrow.

Remember Reagan's old adage that the definition of eternity is the lifespan of a "temporary" government program? The same applies to bogus "tax cuts."

Imagine a Democrat mantra of, "The Republicans want to force you to start paying for your Social Security again!"

[jackbill]

Just 8 percent of people in Louisiana would reap tax benefits from Bush's proposed elimination on dividends, he said.

I didn't realize that the people of Louisiana were so destitute. I'd be willing to bet Mr. Breaux my monthly Social Security check that he is dead wrong.

[jackbill]

I wish that payroll taxes (on both employee/employer) would be cut. I am crazy for thinking this?

If you want to see any of your Social Security or Medicare in the future, you are.

[Karsus]

I do not plan on seeing ANY of the money I pay into social security in the future. I am saving on my own. It would just be easier to say if the goverment didn't try to 'help' me save.

[jackbill]

15%(+/-)of total payroll up to far more than the average annual salary goes to the feds, with no deductions, no exemptions, no nothing. And it falls squarely on the backs of folks with lower income.

I suggest that you look in your friendly Form 1040 Instructions and look at the tables for the Earned Income Credit. Most of "folks with lower income" get an amount of "free money" that far exceeds what they pay in payroll tax.

For instance, a Single Head of Household with two kids, making $10,400, gets a check for $4,140. And they would have paid about $650 in payroll tax.

A single Head of Household or Married filing jointly, making about $25,000 gets a check that reimburses them for every penny of payroll tax that they paid.

I think that you might want to educate yourself.

[unixfox]

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, two Republicans who opposed Bush's across-the-board tax-rate reductions in 2001, also are skeptical, as are some other Republicans.

I wished to hell these two effing RINO's would just jump ship and spare us the damn drama !!!

[Coleus]

ping

[TheCPA]

I am all for tax cuts. However, the details of making SOME dividends tax free are rather complex. The cost and hassles of dealing with such complexity might not be worth the tax savings to many people and companies. A better way to simplify the tax law and repeal the double tax on dividends would be to make dividends a deductible expense at the corporate level. Such dividends should include constructive dividends so that arguments about reasonable compensation, etc would be no more. Alternatively, all dividends received should be tax free. The devil is always in the details. I favor repealing the limit on the deductibility of net capital losses and reducing all taxes.

[irv]

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, two Republicans

I stopped reading at this point. If they can't even get this right, why would I expect accuracy in the rest of the article?