The Coming Democrat Tax Increase

Better to pay the bills now or pass them on to the grandkids? If we didn't have the Bush Oil Grab War to pay for . . . .

 

Propaganda. What a bunch of baloney. Bush raised taxes on small businesses and the middle class and called it a "tax cut." I got $600 back one year after paying about $4,500 more than I did the last year Clinton was in office. Do the math, that's no "cut". The only significant "cuts" that have been experienced under the Republicans have been for the wealthiest 15%. Essentially, the tax burden on the typical middle class family, according to the GAO, is 12% greater now than it was under Clinton.

 

As a tax preparer, I am amazed at the number of teachers, janitors, and people making next to nothing who saw their taxes drop and now find themselves part of the "Richest" class in America who benefited from the tax cuts :laugh: This is actually a running joke among my colleagues in the business.

It's a shame that rhetoric replaces reason, and blind party loyalty replaces factual analysis when we talk about the financial well-being of average Americans.

I'd like to see a link to this supposed middle class tax-increase from the GAO. While that did occur under Clinton's plan in 1993, what I've seen lately shows that the Bush plan increased the tax burden on the upper tax brackets, paying a higher tax burden. I'm not at my PC to post the link - my apologies.

We need to debate the merits of a tax increase in light of our increasing need of revenues because of our increased present and future expenditures, but please, can we drop the talking points and use our brains, for a change?

PLEASE? raying:

 

Our business firm CPA, a staunch Republican, could give you an earful about the alleged Bush tax "cuts" and who benefits from them. I know too many people whose tax burden has increased by double digit percentages under this President, not because of "rated" increases, but because of lost deductions and loopholes.

The President proposes the annual budget to Congress. If there are any tax increases in the wind for the next two years, they are Republican ones, unless the "W" has changed his party affiliation. This is the same old scare tactic hooey that we hear when the Republicans have lost and they don't have any traction on the real issues.

One of these days, someone with responsibility in government is going to have to collect money from somewhere to pay for all this stuff that Bush has blithely charged to the future. Perhaps they'll show the same kind of fiscal responsibility and fortitude that Clinton did by having to pay on Reagan's debts.

 

I think we need to cut a lot of spending. I'm not voting for anyone who is not for cutting a bunch of spending on everything, especially education, which is currently worse than it's ever been before even though we're now spending more than we've ever spent before.

 

Where exactly is this grabbed oil that comes up every so often? How come CNN hasn't found it?

 

At least the democrats make us pay for everybody's free stuff. The republicans somehow give everybody their free stuff without raising taxes.

 

Did you think all the money Bush has wasted on the war and his failed policies wouldn't have to be repaid?

 

It's in barrels sitting next to the WMDs.:laugh:

My thoughts are, if we went to war for oil, how come we haven't seen any of it? You'd think Bush would realize that he would be more popular if he made gas prices go way down.

 

It's really amazing, isn't it, how so many people actually believe this war was about stealing oil from Iraq?

It's equally amazing, isn't it, that so many people believe it's the President's responsibility and ability to set the price of crude oil and refined products such as gasoline? When the price goes up it's his fault - all this fault - but when it goes down it's someone else's credit. What happened to fundamental education on supply and demand? It must be the government schools!

 

I will tell you what has happened to it, it is socialist revisionism. Socialism cannot advance in the light of truth so it must revise history and reality to prosper.

 

[broken record]

Again, ya'll. The Fair Tax. And all of this junk goes away.

www.fairtax.org

Well, that, and electing reps that don't spend so much that they give drunken sailors a bad name.



[/broken record]

 

Yes, indeed, bring on "The Fair Tax"! It's long overdue.

 

The pre-bate is to protect the poor...it means no tax for anything up to poverty level. No such parameters exist for the debit tax.

Most congressmen/women dismiss the FT out of hand without even understanding it (Figures, since they vote for whoever they are currently in bed with). But the first objection is, "it will hurt the poor." The Fair Tax does not hurt the poor. But, since it might impact a MAJOR money-for-votes program (welfare), it probably won't see the light of day.

 

Half the U.S. economy is already under the table. A 30% national sales tax will be loved by the black marketers.

 

Is that anything like bush went into iraq for oil?

 

Has anyone considered that the tax system cannot be changed by any President, back when, now, or in the future, but only by a vote of Congress? I have never blamed any "tax woes" on any President, but on the Congress that, by the Constitution, authorize any and all federal 'income' and 'outgo'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No matter "which side of the aisle" one "weighs down" with pork, 'er I mean, where one sits.

Ed

 

The tax system will never change. The old people always vote and the young people seldom vote. The AARP and the NEA can swing any election.