Good grief. Way to completely miss the point of his statement.

The point of the statement was that raising taxes on the rich would accomplish little under the current tax laws, due to the fact that the rich are able to avoid paying a large percentage of their taxes.

This has nothing to do with political party, it is because the rich hire accountants and money managers and such who know how to keep the majority of their cash/income in tax free brackets.

That was the point of the remark.

Vincible has hit the nail on the head - the only sane solution is to get rid of the thousands of pages of convoluted tax regs & truly make it simple. Won't hold my breath, since we don't live in a sane world, but the notion of moving from taxing income to taxing consumption in some fashion has merit & should be explored further. Would do a lot to take the whole class warfare thing off the table. And Draginol is correct - funny how the rich are rich-man Kerry's whipping boys when they are already carrying the bulk of the load.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I am extremely wealthy but still I pay in the name of tax. Every year I have to spend on hookers and holidays for numerous tax inspectors from our dear old Inland Revenue, all in the name of tax evasion!

Don't say the rich don't pay through the nose my dear boy.

I dont have a problem with the rich getting a tax cut provided they use the tax cut in the interest of helping America as a whole. For example by infusing that money back into their companies by creating more jobs and purchasing more goods. Not using a loophole to get their wives SUV as a tax write off even when they arent using for the business.

Giving a company a tax cut to ship jobs to India does not help the American economy no matter how you slice it.

I mean really, what is India giving back - Absolutely nothing.

A tax cut to companies that keep jobs in the states is a much more helpful situation.
It will increase the size of the middle class, that in turn will allow the middle class to spend more money on things like vacations, cars, computers, etc that will move the economy forward.

I mean really, what is India giving back

Indian food, I myself enjoy certain dishes, and I know a lot of people who are just crazy about the stuff.

Bush's program became immediately clear once he took office. He pushed tax cuts for teh wealthy, opposed strict enviromental regulations that would cost omney for teh business interests, and planned to "privatize" Social Security by having the retirement funds of citizens depend on the stock market. He moved to increase the military budget, and to pursue the "Star Wars" program though the consensus of scientific opinion was that antiballistic missiles in space could not work, and that even if the plan worked, it woudl only trigger a more furious arms race throughout the world. If you ask me, bush as a president was just another replica of his father. He supported the corporate control of the economy and used more money on military than on the needs of children throughout the country. Just like his father bush didn't have a plan for free national health care, for extensive low-cost housing, for dramatic change in environmental controls. Both supported the death penalty and the growth of prisons. Both favored a large military establishment, the continued use of land mines, and the use of sanctions against the innocent people of Cuba and Iraq.

Indian food, I myself enjoy certain dishes, and I know a lot of people who are just crazy about the stuff.

I dont agree with you on that one.

We tried Indian food once at our house and BOY!!!!! - India definately has Iraq beat on the WMD!!

Luckly we avoided invasion because we promised not to try Indian food again.

Some great discussion here guys...

The point that seems to be missed by the pro-Bush in this thread is that whilst he has acknowledged these loopholes exist, he has no intention of exposing them...

If I was a member of the American public, that's where my interests would lie - in having a dedicated president who want's 'liberty and Justice' for all... How come invading another country isn't too hard, but really sitting down, and nutting out known existing tax loopholes gets put into the 'too hard' basket...

No one is saying it is easy, but surely people would like to know something is being done, rather than a blatent disregard of the problem...

BAM!!!

Giving a company a tax cut to ship jobs to India does not help the American economy no matter how you slice it.

Where did this myth come from? I don't believe there is any such tax policy which rewards companies for shipping jobs to India or anywhere else, although they certainly avoid the matching Social Security tax, don't they? Not to mention lowering their cost of labor. The real problem here is that we've been insulated from global labor reality for so long that dealing with labor competition is very difficult for us. Despite that, the trend to "offshoring" as many call it is actually a tiny fraction of jobs, far fewer than the cassandra's would like us to believe. On the other hand, has anyone mentioned here lately that the Heinz companies have eleven or so factories overseas, far more than they have in the states? Seems reasonable to have local production overseas for overseas markets, but take a look at that ketchup bottle occasionally & see where it's made.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Pork is pork, whether it takes the form of government spending giving money to a particular favored industry or government tax cuts aimed at not taking money from a particular favored industry.

Do you have children? Is it fair that people with children got a $500 per child tax credit last year and people without children don't? Is it fair that people get to claim dependents? Why should Joe and Jane married childless couple be taxed more than Bill and Jill married with 5 kids?

I don't think some of you have thought this through to its logical conclusion. The tax system is already full of exceptions all the way down the line. 

What we do know, however, is that the wealthy pay lots of taxes. Lots more than the average person (even as a percentage of income). And they receive the same (or less) services than everyone else. 

Should the rich also pay more for their cable TV? Electricity? Food? Where do you draw the line?

The point that seems to be missed by the pro-Bush in this thread is that whilst he has acknowledged these loopholes exist, he has no intention of exposing them...

Huh? Wasn't he quoted as exposing them? Not specifically, but he at least has the honesty to point out the obvious. It's Congress, remember, which creates and perpetuates these loopholes you're bashing Bush for. He's on your side & you don't see it. He's not saying "The rich dodge taxes, get over it & deal with it", he's at least opening the door to a discussion of how our tax code is broken.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Where did this myth come from? I don't believe there is any such tax policy which rewards companies for shipping jobs to India or anywhere else,

Here is just an example....."While corporate America is selling out the working people of this country and moving millions of jobs abroad, the taxpayers of this country continue to provide tens of billions a year in corporate welfare - loans, loan guarantees, grants, low-cost insurance and tax breaks - to the very same corporations that are throwing American workers out on the street."

" Since 2001, General Motors laid off 37,500 workers and invested $3.5 billion building manufacturing plants in China , while receiving over $500 million from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, $9.1 million from the Advanced Technology Program, and more than $8.5 million from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. GM has recently announced that it will be buying $6 billion in auto parts from China every year, up from $2.8 billion last year." ~ Rep. Bernie Sanders

I don't think there is really any problem exposing them, since tax law is publicly accessable and every CPA in America is pretty well grounded in all of them. It isn't some secret. Every major metropolitan area in America has a handful of millionaires and many more businesses that take advantage of them.

I think you are overlooking the fact, again, that the Senate makes law, and the Senate is far, far more influenced by interests and the whims of the affluent. I don't think you even have to address the morality of the tax loopholes in question to see that the basic vibe of this statement is flawed. Bush simply acknowledged the loopholes were there, a fact that everyone, in America and outside it, knows.

If Americans were hell-bent to get tax laws changed, they could overwhelmingly respond and get attention. The fact is, though, that as a "movement" no one is really all that steamed about it. If you look at people like Steve Forbes and others who have propsed a 17% or so "flat tax", you'll realize that the tax burden on them now is something along the lines of 50% of their income.

No offense intended, Muggaz, but this reads a lot like social commentary by our "Canadian Friends" here at JU. 99% of the time when someone from outside the US exposes some scandalous fact about the US, most of us already know, and really don't give it much thought.

I don't think some of you have thought this through to its logical conclusion. The tax system is already full of exceptions all the way down the line.

I agree. If "fairness" is to be the standard, a consumption-based tax is the "most" fair and, in Adam Smith's scheme of things, the most likely to perpetuate self-beneficial economic behavior since we are able to make informed, conscious economic decisions with a consumption-based tax, whereas success is very much a two-edged sword with an income-based tax system. I realize that a smaller portion of our total tax burden comes from income taxes than most of us realize, but that just supports the notion that transitioning to a completely consumption-based tax system would not be that disruptive.

I also wonder what might happen if suddenly we were given back control over our money again (it is "ours", after all) - how much more might that fuel the economic engine?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Despite that, the trend to "offshoring" as many call it is actually a tiny fraction of jobs, far fewer than the cassandra's would like us to believe

Well you obviously dont live in an area where thousands of people are looking for work because they lost their middle class jobs to "offshoring" and are having to work at a supermarket at minimum wage.

I just have to give one example - "Earthlink" sent off shore around 3000 jobs. That in turn has flooded the market with unemployed workers that cant find work.
I was fortunate to still have a job but 70% of my friends and family were out of work for a year and have finally found work in retail. About 1/2 of what they were making.

What we do know, however, is that the wealthy pay lots of taxes. Lots more than the average person (even as a percentage of income). And they receive the same (or less) services than everyone else.

No matter how you cut it, if I make $4000 dollars a month and only see $2000, it is not the same as someone who makes 8 million a month and only takes home 4 million. Even though the percentage is the same, he can buy 10 more houses than I can where I could not even by one. The difference lies in the fact that he can end up writing off much more because of loopholes and thus ends up paying a smaller percentage of his total income.

As for the services, if the rich guys house was burning down and my house was burning down at the same time, I should get the priority to have my house saved because I pay a higher percentage of taxes. We all know that wont happen.