August 11, 2004

Bush Speaks on Tax Issue

Replacing the current income tax system is something we should "seriously consider" according to Bush.

Republican economists who speak regularly to the White House have said that the Bush campaign has been mulling the idea of an overhaul of the tax code as part of an agenda for a second term should Bush win reelection.

Read more.

The article talks about a national income tax, but it also mentions a flat tax. However, everytime the flat tax comes up, you see this lie:

Opponents say such a system would not be in the best interests of the poor and the middle class who would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income.

Yes, it's the same bloody rate, but it's not the same amount of money! Does anyone understand how percentages work? I've had arguments time and time again (mainly with those who strongly believe in a 'redistribution of wealth') that just can't comprehend that the rich will still pay a lot more even though the percentage is the same. They still think that it's unfair to the poor.

I for one think that someone who makes $5,000 a year should pay the same percentage rate as someone who makes $500,000. The rich guy still pays more, but the poor guy is also putting into the system.

Who gets the most out of the "system?" The poor guy, of course. If you get something out of the system (especially as much as our "system" gives out these days), then you should put something in. If someone is putting into the system, then they've also got a stake (or investment, if you will) into that system. When someone has a stake in something, then it means more.

Many people can't begin to fathom these thoughts. They call people like me heartless conservatives. I don't care. Conservative ideals go a lot farther in actually helping the poor while liberal ideals (which have prevailed over the last half-century) seem to have created a larger class of citizens who are dependent on the government...essentially "stuck in a rut."

Yes, this issue goes way beyond the income tax issue, but when conservatives actually try to discuss an economic plan which will help this country, it's always time to roll out the class warfare with liberals.

Liberals: You've had a half-century to try to prove your ideas. They've failed. Get over it.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

"Yes, it's the same bloody rate, but it's not the same amount of money! Does anyone understand how percentages work? I've had arguments time and time again (mainly with those who strongly believe in a 'redistribution of wealth') that just can't comprehend that the rich will still pay a lot more even though the percentage is the same. They still think that it's unfair to the poor."

You're right, it's not the same amount of money. That doesn't mean it's not unfair. Read the last part again: "would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income."

If we live in a society where the bare minimum amount per year necessary to survive is N dollars, then a family barely making N dollars will have a much harder time paying that flat percentage of their income than someone who makes N several times over every year, because it doesn't put them in the red.

You and I may disagree about whether or not that's right/wrong, or fair/unfair, but I've not run into many people that misunderstand a flat tax as a flat sum of money rather than a percentage as you claim.

"Conservative ideals go a lot farther in actually helping the poor while liberal ideals (which have prevailed over the last half-century) seem to have created a larger class of citizens who are dependent on the government...essentially "stuck in a rut.""

Please justify this statement.. What evidence are you basing this on?

"Liberals: You've had a half-century to try to prove your ideas. They've failed. Get over it."

Again, please justify this.

Posted by: Chris Wage at August 11, 2004 03:08 PM

Time to admit it: tax cuts simply have failed to create jobs

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040810/OPINION03/408100302/1035/OPINION

Posted by: The Token Librul at August 11, 2004 04:31 PM

lets just base taxes on what the poorest man can pay. say $5.oo a year.

Posted by: captain at August 11, 2004 11:19 PM

your as smart as a rock.

Posted by: captain at August 15, 2004 02:24 AM

"Liberals have had a half-century to prove your ideas..." I guess that's except for Ike's eight years, Nixon/Ford's eight years, Reagan's eight years and the Bush crime family's nearly eight years. So of the past half-century, rethuglicon presidents have stunk up the White House for coming up on 32 years.

Posted by: The Token Librul at August 17, 2004 12:31 AM