The Taxman -- a humorous video that explores the consequences if tax-raising Democrats (is there any other kind?) were to re-assume control of Congress.
(or increase their majority in the Washington Legislature)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 24, 2006 11:50 PM | Email ThisDOW closed at all times highs again yesterday.
This is the greatest story never told.
Posted by: swatter on October 25, 2006 06:56 AMYes, the top 20% pay over 50% of the taxes in this country...but they control far MORE than 50% of the wealth.
Bush's tax cuts in particular are the worst kind. They benefit mostly the top 10%. The dividend tax cut for example benefits mostly CEOs, with their millions of shares of stock. It doesn't benefit the majority of middle class Americans.
What are needed are more targetted tax cuts, and raises. Taxes need to be oriented more at WEALTH (which accumulates) vs INCOME (which gets spent, and "trickles down".
Some "good" cuts.
Increase the child care tax credit. Quality childcare costs over $10k year. Current credit is only for $5k. Two worker families are the norm now, unfortunately.
Decrease capital investment schedule, from 5 years to 3. This would allow companies to invest in themselves.
Cuts that need to be rolled back...
Roll back dividend tax cuts..benefit very few.
Keep estate tax (again, hits ONLY the wealthy, and moron small business owners who don't spend $100 to incorporate).
Increase the top tax rate back to Clinton levels (from 33-36%)
Just for starters. The key is precisely targeted.
Posted by: Proteus on October 25, 2006 07:20 AMI am still a moron small business owner that my tax guys says should not incorporate.
BTW, it cost me $1000 to incorporate one (of three) of my new companies. I mean, I set it up correctly and am giving money to the State in more taxes. Can't be bad, can it?
Lastly, and while I don't like it, the filthy rich also need motivation to reinvest their billions. Bush gave it to them. They also drop out if they have to pay a lot of taxes.
Posted by: Moron on October 25, 2006 08:13 AMTheir internal polls must be even worse than the public polls.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on October 25, 2006 08:14 AMActually it makes no difference in 401k's - they aren't taxed anyway - until withdrawn, at which point everything (I think) is considered income.
But I agree with you fully - it helps a lot more than the "filthy rich" (a term used by the jealous lazy?)
I'm also fed up with the 'they have so much, we have a right to it' mentality. They went out and worked their butts off, and the 'entitlement clan' feels they deserve the fruit of that family's labor.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 25, 2006 08:54 AMAnd I am middle class, and the dividend tax cut helped me.
Posted by: Palouse on October 25, 2006 09:00 AMsstar - tax revenue has soared, that is how the war is being paid.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 25, 2006 09:18 AMOT: Personally I think there should be a personal flat income tax only - no deductions, no credits, no political handouts. A base income before it starts would be about the only thing. That way the tax structure does not effect business decisions. End users pay all the taxes anyway, so corporate taxes are just a way for the entitlement clan to feel good about themselves.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 25, 2006 09:49 AMfwiw, buffet and gates were on a forum-type talk show, and buffet specifically described how he is opposed to the flat tax, how his taxes have been lowered in the last 6 years and why he believes he and others like him should pay more in tax.
apparently not all rich guys are afraid of paying more in tax. i'll trust his word over any politician's word anyday.
Posted by: dinesh on October 25, 2006 10:39 AMIn my experience, you are much more likely to find the Republicans invading the private aspects of our lives to tell us what we can and cannot do. I chortle each time I hear the Republican assertion that they believe in and promote smaller government. HA!
This ad shows the tax man coming into a bedroom...ironic, Republicans are much more likely to care about what goes on in a bedroom than are democrats. It shows the taxman coming into the hospital delivery room...ironic, Republicans are much more likely to try to wedge their way between the relationship of a doctor and a patient (Terry Schiavo, anyone?). It shows the taxman taking money from a woman drinking coffee...ironic, the Republicans are much more likely to interfere in the rights of americans to decide what to ingest.
As has already been pointed out, the National Debt is obscene under the power of Republicans.
When will republicans begin to see that, afterall, they don't really believe in smaller, less intrusive government.
Really...I chortle. ;-)
Posted by: Timothy on October 25, 2006 10:59 AMbut, hey, should i believe a well-respected business man who has remained true to his principles or you.....not even a real choice....
Posted by: dinesh on October 25, 2006 11:38 AMYou also say "It shows the taxman taking money from a woman drinking coffee...ironic, the Republicans are much more likely to interfere in the rights of americans to decide what to ingest." But, wasn't it liberals in Seattle that suggested putting a special tax on latte's a couple of years back? Seems to me that is right on.
Finally, you also said "As has already been pointed out, the National Debt is obscene under the power of Republicans." True, the National Debt has increased in dollar terms in the last six years, but as a percent of the GDP, it has gone down. It is better to have a higher national debt in dollar terms than to have a higher national debt in percentage terms.
Just because you finance $300,000 today on a $400,000 house whereas 10 years ago you financed only $200,000 on a $300,000 house, does not mean you are worse off today, if:
1) interest rates are lower; and 2) your income is higher. Both of those things are true for today's economy.
I certainly fault the congress for spending too much and fault Bush for not reining in or vetoing some of that over-spending, but to intimate that the Democrats would spend less rather than more, or to intimate that taxes would be lower rather than higher if Dems were in office, is laughable.
Bill H
A simple example for illustration purposes: Let's say the market requires a 10% after-tax return on investment (ROI). If the applicable tax rate goes down from 40% to 20%, then the PRE-tax ROI can go down from 16.67% (10%/(1-.40)) to 12.5% (10%/(1-.20)). Just as bond prices go UP when interest rates go down, so do stock prices go UP when the required return goes down. In this case stock prices should go up on the order of 33% (.1667/.125-1).
EVERYONE invested in the market benefits from lower taxes applied to the market since such lower taxes will cause the market to be pushed higher.
Also this is the same person preying on people by buying out their life insurance at 25 cents on the dollar because they want to spend now and leave nothing for their family. Nice guy!
Timothy - it seems to be the left, not the Republicans, that are trying to regulate trans-fats, forcing fast food places to serve "healthier" food etc. How do you reconcile that with the Rs regulating what we ingest?
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 25, 2006 12:15 PMIn his letter to the Gates foundation, he states that his giving:
"must continue to satisfy legal requirements qualifying my gifts as charitable and not subject to gift or other taxes."
So Buffet is avoiding the very estate tax that he espouses to preserve for others. That is the essence of hypocrisy. He's a brilliant investor, I will give him credit for that. But that's all.
Posted by: Palouse on October 25, 2006 12:42 PMUnless the incorporation is as a sub chapter S corporation (and not all businesses qualify), corporate income is taxed twice; first as corporate profits, the second time as salary or dividends.
Besides, incorporation requires creation of stock, and those shares represent the value of the company. When the owner dies the value of those shares are subject to the estate tax.
Proteus proposes taxing income three times; first as corporate profits, second as salary/dividends, third times a charm from the estate tax.
My recommendation? Don't take financial advice from Proteus.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 25, 2006 12:44 PMhttp://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.44
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=6099
The hub of right wing fanaticism - NYC controlling what we ingest. Good point Timothy!
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 25, 2006 12:58 PMReally? It's the liberal Democrats in Seattle who want to regulate strip clubs out of existence or move them to another part of town, not conservatives.
Posted by: Palouse on October 25, 2006 01:07 PMthat's what makes him rich, and you......
as for your selective, cherry-picking of facts with respect to republican regulation of private life, let me remind you of 1) terry schivao; 2) anti-sodomy laws (which include oral sex); and 3) intelligent design b.s., just to name three.
Posted by: dinesh on October 25, 2006 01:45 PMit's very convenient for you to summarize the terry schiavo matter as the federal govt intervening between a no longer involved husband and a very involved family, but you miss the point:
why did the federal govt intervene at all? why did the federal govt overrule the state govt? and what was bill frist thinking when he pronounced in a speech on the senate floor, "more as a physician than as a united states senator," that schiavo "was not somebody in a persistive vegative state"?
please square those 3 issues with the alleged republican belief of small, limited federal govt which is deferential to states' and individual rights?
face the facts--that republican party doesn't govern this country. we are on republican party version 2.0, which panders to a different base.
Posted by: dinesh on October 25, 2006 02:31 PMBy giving most of his estate to a private charity, he is avoiding the estate tax, not just the gift tax. That's the salient point. Most other businessmen are not in a position to do something like that without selling their business. But he wants to preserve the estate tax for them. If he were not a hypocrit on this issue, he could have still given to charity each year, but let the estate tax occur on the bulk of his estate when he dies. But he's not choosing that option. He wants EVERYONE ELSE to continue paying the estate tax.
Posted by: Palouse on October 25, 2006 03:47 PM
palouse: his kids will be billionaires, by buffet's own admission. i'm sure he will: 1) structure his gift to his kids to minimize the tax liability; and 2) comply with the law.
my point in mentioning
Posted by: dinesh on October 25, 2006 04:45 PMMy own principle is that the purpose of the federal government SHOULD be to protect life and property. The protection of property follows directly from the protection of life. I think it makes perfect sense from this principle to go to great lengths to be sure that someone's life is not being taken cavalierly. I see no conflict at all with what was done in the Shiavo case.
Vote Republican!
These tax happy thieves have to be stopped.
I920 - Repeal the Estate Tax - Hell Yes
I933 - Repeal the Land Theft - Hell Yes
He has been an outspoken proponent of preserving the estate tax, yet his actions are to avoid it. That is hypocrisy.
Posted by: Palouse on October 26, 2006 07:52 AMBill H..why is it laughable? Clinton presided over the biggest economic boom in US history. Middle class salaries, and standard of living went UP. The deficit was starting to get under control..times were great. Then Bush came along, with his "moronomics". We need TARGETED tax cuts, that will return money to the economy. Making Exxons CEO a few billion dollars richer won't do it.
JustSumGuy - 401k and other retirement accounts are EXEMPT from taxation until withdrawal.
As far as dividends go, the vast majority of portfolios will NOT get a benefit from this. Why? Because many stocks don't pay significant dividends. People who get a HUGE benefit from the dividend tax cut are CEOs of large companies, who have millions of shares. The average $50k portfolio will get a very tiny tax break.
Yes, dot com employees and others are exceptions, but the majority will never see a benefit from this.
You want a FAIR tax cut? Cut the payroll tax! Give a child care credit. THESE make the difference in the life of most Americans.
During the first two years, he raised taxes and interest rate spiked--Don't believe me? They went up continuously from the fall of 1993 until the fall of 1994--as I recall, rates went up a full 300 basis points (i.e. 3%). They peaked on the very day that Republicans won the election in November of 1994, at which point interest rates started falling and the stock market started going up.
What did Clinton accomplish in his first two years other than raising taxes? Well he spooked the market with Hillary's doomed health care initiative, which is why interest rates spiked. This is also why interest rates came back down after the Republicans took over Congress.
After the Republicans took over Congress, they passed welfare reform and balanced the budget. I give credit to Clinton for (finally) signing the welfare bill, although he only did it after vetoing it twice and then only signing it because Dick Morris told him he had to triangulate to win election in 1996.
So, don't tell me that Democrats lower taxes or that they balance the budget--they may be talking points for Democrats, but they are unconvincing to those of us that actually follow what happens.
As to your comments to JustSumGuy on 401(k)'s--see my post #25, which discusses how everyone benefits from lower taxes on dividends and capital gains, even those in 401(k) plans. Personally, I would tax all amounts paid out of 401(k) plans at the lower capital gains rate, but then I think overall taxes are still way higher than they should be and that the government does far more and spends way more than is necessary.
Finally, the tax code shouldn't be used as a behavioral modification plan. It should be set up to collect the money that is needed to run the government and having the least impact on the American economy. Child tax credits, for example, do little or nothing to improve the economy. Tax RATE cuts do. That is why the economy has been so robust since the last set of tax cuts.
Cutting the payroll tax would just put social security and/or medicare in worse shape than they already are. Personally, I am very concerned about taking too many people off of the tax rolls. If more than 50% of the people do not pay taxes (and right now the lowest 50% pay less than 4% of taxes) then you could have a majority that is able to bleed the minority. No one should be able to argue to increase taxes if they do not pay taxes themselves.
Posted by: Bill H on October 26, 2006 07:05 PMThe tax code has ALWAYS been used a a behavioural modification plan. This is why there is are child credit..why there are so many loopholes for large corporations, for agriculture, for dividends...etc. Tax RATE cuts help the economy..to a point. After that, we get diminishing returns (as we have had with these latest cuts). How low is too low? Do you really think if we cut a CEO's tax bill in half, that he's going to spend more at his corner grocery store?
The lowest 50% pay a LARGE portion of their income in taxes..perhaps not the income tax, but in many other taxes that hit them disproportionatly. Payroll taxs hit them for the FULL amount of their income, vs only the bottom $90k for the wealthy. Excise, consumption, gas, sales taxes, etc all hit the middle class much harder than the wealthy, as they are regressive. The income tax is only ONE of many..but it is the ONLY fair tax we can raise to increase revenue.
For example, a couple earning 200k is paying only 24% in taxes, under current codes. As a person making $40k needs to spend most of that income to survive, they pay a much higher percentage of that income in gas, sales, and utility taxes..and still get hit by the 15% rate.
Anyway..read here about the accuracy of you "lucky ducky" arguement...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25¬Found=true
Social Security taxes--it is common to refer to this as a "regressive tax" since it is a flat tax and only applied to the first $94,200 of income (this wage level increases with inflation each year). However, when you include the progressive nature of the benefits, it is anything BUT regressive. The tax only applies to income up to the wage limit because benefits are only BASED on income up to the wage limit. In addition, benefits are VERY skewed to lower income earners. The bend points in 2006 are $656 and $3,955 of monthly income. The SS formula is based on 90% of income up to the first bend point, 32% up to the second bend point, and 15% above the second bend point (up to the maximum wage base). Taking into account the benefits, SS is not regressive at all!
You said to look at something other than the DOW--in my post, I referred you to INTEREST RATES that spiked when Clinton and the Dem Congress passed their tax increases and threatened HillaryCare, and then started downward when Republicans were elected. But let's look at something other than the Dow. You mentioned the NASDAQ. That peaked in the internet bubble of the Clinton years (in March of 2000)--recall "Irrational Exuberance"? Since Bush's "Moronic" taxcuts that you criticize, the NASDAQ has grown from about 1400 in January of 2003 to 2379 yesterday--that is a 70% increase. How about the Russell 2000, a broadbased market average? It has grown from about 390 in January of 2003 to 778 yesterday--that is an increase of 99%! Clearly tax cuts have had a positive effect on the overall market!
You say "The tax code has ALWAYS been used a a behavioural modification plan." I agree with you. My point was that it should NOT be. The American people are adults. It insults me that someone in government thinks they know better. That is why I also oppose:
1. Helmet laws (bicycles as well as motorcycles), except as they apply to children.
2. Seatbelt laws except as they apply to children.
3. Smoking restrictions in places that people are free to go to or not, such as Washington now has in place (and no, I do not smoke). I WOULD support prominent disclosure on the outside of such places as to whether smoking is allowed or not.
ETC...
I am not a Republican and I do think the Republicans have made a lot of mistakes over the last few years...especially spending way too much money. I think they should be CUTTING spending drastically. However, since I think the only primary responsibility of the Federal Government should be Defense (from without as well as from within) and providing Courts, the Department of Defense is an area that I think needs MORE money. I also think we are in a very critical confrontation with Radical Islam--I think Europe may be past the tipping point. I don't see the Democrats as understanding that fact and until and unless they do, I will not be voting for them. I don't agree with Republicans on many things but they are better economically than Democrats and they GET the issue with Radical Islam more so than Democrats.
I tried to look at the WaPo article you sent the url to, but got the error message "The page may have moved or may no longer be available".