By Larry Elder
Oct 20, 2005
Syndicated columnist
Rudeness plagues America.
Nearly 70 percent of Americans, according to a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll, consider people more rude than 20 or 30 years ago. Over the last 20 years, according to two prominent Democratic strategists, Americans engaged in a kind of "great sorting-out" -- staking out hard, well-defined, even intolerant, ideological political camps.
Now it all makes sense -- only one side seems a tad more intolerant than the other.
Take last Friday. After work, I drove to a local watering hole for my customary vodka and cran. A couple of anti-war Democrats and I began talking politics. While I disagreed with their positions, they made sensible, if unpersuasive, arguments. You know the drill: Bush built a case for war on bad intelligence; the cultural complexity of Iraq makes America's "imposition" of a democracy unlikely; the Iraq War now serves as a breeding ground for terrorists; other enemies like Iran and North Korea pose even greater threats to America; etc. But then another man, eavesdropping, decided to join in. Within five seconds, he called the president "an idiot." I let it go. Moments later, however, he changed it to "moron." All right, enough.
"Sir, you don't know me, and I don't know you. You barged into a conversation, not a wrestling match. He gave his view," I said, pointing to another man, "and gave reasons. Calling the president 'an idiot' is not a reason. It is childish and shows your lack of ability to make a sensible argument."
He said, "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."
"That's not an opinion. It's an attack. And in any case, you're not entitled to have me listen to it. So I suggest you move on and enlighten somebody else."
He glared, but walked away.
Now on to the next day, Saturday. A friend, a decorated Vietnam vet, celebrated his 60th birthday with about 50 festive partygoers. I sat at a table of eight, and someone said something about the president's recent defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, calling the battle for her confirmation "uphill." To this, the 60-something woman sitting next to me, with whom, up until this point, I had exchanged pleasantries, suddenly blurted, "Well, I'm from Seattle, and we hate Bush up there -- "
I let it go.
" -- and the thing that we hate the most about Bush is that he claims people shouldn't pay taxes."
All right, enough.
"Excuse me," I said, "can you tell me when the president said, 'People shouldn't pay taxes'?"
"He says it all the time," she replied.
"So then it should be fairly easy for you to tell me when, or perhaps where, he said it."
"Well, it's in his budget."
"Do you mean the most recently passed budget," I asked, "the one that calls for spending something like two-and-a-half trillion dollars?"
"Yes."
"If the budget calls for that much in spending, where do you suppose the government gets the money?"
"What do you mean?" she asked.
"Well, you say the president says 'people ought not pay taxes.' If people don't pay taxes, how does the government get the two-and-a-half trillion?"
"Oh," she said, "I see what you're saying. Let me clarify. Bush says, 'Rich people should not pay taxes.'"
"Oh, really? And when did he say that?"
"Well, he implies it -- he's always seeking to cut taxes on the rich."
"Well," I responded, "as a member of the so-called rich, I welcome you to take a look at my 1040. I pay a substantial amount in taxes. And if there's some program or provision that allows 'the rich' to avoid taxes, perhaps I should consider firing my accountant." At this, the others at the table laughed, but not, of course, my debating opponent.
"Well, it's obvious," she said. "We see things differently."
"We most certainly do, and I think it's pretty much fruitless for us to continue the conversation. But, if you don't mind, I have a brief question for you."
"OK," she said.
"Of the top 1 percent of taxpayers, what percentage do they pay of federal income tax revenues?"
"What do you mean?"
"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice -- by percentage -- of that pie?"
"Oh, I see," she said. "Virtually nothing."
"Nothing?"
"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."
Later, during the party, several people told her that I hosted a nationally syndicated radio show, and informed her of my "conservative" politics.
"I'm sorry," she said. "I didn't mean to anger you."
"No, I wasn't angry. I was disappointed that someone could go through the world so incredibly ill-informed."
She walked away.
For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.
People should know this. Even if you live in Seattle.
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...20/172024.html
-UR
__________________ "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"--Amendment II, Bill of Rights
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."--Thomas Paine
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus, Luke 22:36
Sounds pretty reasonable to me that the people who make the most money should pay the most taxes. Does anyone have a problem with that?
One of my objections to the Bush administration is that they cut taxes, then went on a spending spree like they were Tip O'Neil on speed. Does anyone really think that spending more than what's brought in is either right or practical?
And the president stands in front of friendly crowds, blathering about "sacrifices" for the war. He's the only president who ever cut taxes during wartime, and he did it for people who were doing just fine without the cuts. Where's the sacrifice in that? Or the sense? I seriously resent having my children and grandchildren stuck with the bill for this administration's profligate ways
There are reasons why people need to make more money than others, and there are economics that morons who can still vote and legislate don't understand.
For one thing, California might as well have an exchange rate with the rest of the country because everything costs so dang much more. Also some folks have needs that are different than others. And if you think that the complicated tax systems with provisions for different situations actually takes care of that, then I think you're mistaken, it only provides a more convoluted system with inefficiencies and loopholes to exploit. Want the rich to may more taxes and the poor less? Abolish income tax.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
Yeah, the current system is in effect exponential or at least polynomial, instead of proportional. Ie it's not the rich paying more taxes, but paying a higher percentage. That's just nuts. Then again, income tax itself is anti-constitutional, but that's another matter.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
Troy,
The tax cuts you question are designed to stimulate the economy that went suoth during Commrad Clinton's last year in office. The smoke & Mirrors met the bright light of day, and the .com economy crashed. Slick Willie took credit for it for seven years then said it wasen't his fault when it crashed.
Interestingly, the latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden were released the same day Ms. Tritch’s tirade appeared. They show that the top one percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top five percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.
Another IRS report decomposed the top one percent and found that the top ten percent of the top one percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from seven percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion—four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent—who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me that the people who make the most money should pay the most taxes. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Yes, I do. As a percentage of income, they pay more in taxation than the bottom income earners. That is a problem, in my opinion, and grossly unfair. If the rate was more "flat", they would still pay more in actual dollars, but not in proportion to income. That would be fair.
Quote:
One of my objections to the Bush administration is that they cut taxes, then went on a spending spree like they were Tip O'Neil on speed. Does anyone really think that spending more than what's brought in is either right or practical?
There, you have the big issue that really incenses many conservatives. It shows the divergence between so called Republicans inside D.C. and those who elected them. Spending has been one of the biggest disappointments I have seen with the current administration and Congress. There are other issues, as well.
Quote:
and he did it for people who were doing just fine without the cuts. Where's the sacrifice in that? Or the sense? I seriously resent having my children and grandchildren stuck with the bill for this administration's profligate ways
That part is just plain inaccurate. The tax cut was 1. minimal and 2. broad based. It was not for the well off exclusively, as was characterized by the left and the media. Tax cuts increase tax revenue EVERY TIME it is tried. This was no exception. JFK knew this and did it in the 60's. Reagan knew it and did it in the 80's. Bush knows it and did it in the 2000's. His tax cuts didn't go far enough, however.
The profligate ways, as you put it, is relevent to spending, but not the minor tax cuts. Sorry, but it is econ 101.
In regards to the idea that the "well off" not needing tax cuts, consider the following basic truth. The wealthy are the ones who hire people. Poor people do not. When their money is more heavily taxed and therefore not available for business growth, then they will not be investing more into their businesses, hiring more people, buying new equipment, increasing existing wages, etc. When less money is sent to the governemnt in the form of taxation, more capital is available for business. More business capital means business growth. Business growth means that more tax money is generated by more employees and more commerce. Since the economy is not a static or a "zero sum gain", the resultant tax revenues actually increase.
Sorry, guys. I don't buy the "less is more' arguments, no matter how prettily they're couched. The idea that all taxes uncollected turn into investment capital, which in turn creates more taxes, is overly optimistic and simplistic. Particularly when you have large corporations increasingly outsourcing their jobs and manufacturing so that the wages they pay don't even get spent in this country, and companies relocating their corporate offices to the Bahamas to avoid paying corporate taxes, and foreign-owned companies taking their profits home.
I don't believe in perpetual motion machines, either.
Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
Try getting your information from nonpartisan sources next time. There is an obvious bias in your source.
The fact is that I got a tax cut. I got a refund, as did millions of others. You cite large corporations in your opinion. However, the MAJORITY of jobs created in this country are NOT by large corporations, they are with small business. Fact is fact.
It is also fact that you can historically track the growth in revenue to the government treasury after each tax cut. The facts don't lie about the results of tax cuts. Less money to the government equals more investment capital. This equals growth in the economy. That equals more people working, growth in business, and more tax base and subsequent revenue to the treasury. It has been proven to work that way, whether you choose to believe it or not. Sorry, but fact is fact.
Since you wanted to cite sources, here are a few for you. Just because your citation was the first to come up in a Google search of "Bush tax cuts" doesn't make it accurate or pre-eminent. Keep reading.
Since you wanted to cite sources, here are a few for you. Just because your citation was the first to come up in a Google search of "Bush tax cuts" doesn't make it accurate or pre-eminent. Keep reading.
There are 624,000 results in a Google search. There are biased sources and nonpartisan ones. Just read.
The first one was non-partisan, but it was mostly charts that wouldn't cut and paste for reasons I didn't feel like exploring. Since the next one I checked had the same charts in a different format (with the same numbers), I went with it.
Snideness doesn't become you; you're a sharp guy and don't need it.
Yeah, I got Bush's little refund too. It was a blip in my income--maybe what I might clear working an extra weekend, if they were short days. I didn't even notice it.
I'll cheerfully look over the sites you listed when I get a chance and the ambition, but you might save me some time: exactly what facts cited by my source were in error? Never mind the partisan rhetoric they were tossing out or the spin they were using; just tell me which numbers in the charts were wrong.
I, for one, am on the lower half of the income spectrum. While I enjoy the tax breaks I get (5 children helps a lot), I have always considered a flat tax the right way to go and would support it. Why should one group be forced to give a higher percent of their income to the government than another. The reasons people give astound me.
I looked over those four sites, and I'm underwhelmed.
Nothing in them refuted the charts that were on the website I quoted. Perhaps I should have imported the actual charts, but I didn't want to clutter up this forum with them, and I assumed anyone interested enough to answer me would go there first. Perhaps I was wrong?
"When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut." This is from your first source, and hardly backs up your statement that the tax cuts were 'minimal.'
"But most importantly, the average is inflated by the fact that most of the money is going to a relatively few taxpayers at the top of the income scale..." This one is from your second source, and directly contradicts your assertion that the tax cuts were 'broad-based.'
"Nonetheless, it now appears that the budget deficit will be at least $60 billion lower than last year and states and cities, led by California, which a few years ago were awash in debt themselves, will enjoy net surpluses of at least $50 billion." This is from your third source. It was a prophesy made in June, and as anyone from California could tell you, it turned out to be dead wrong.
I also looked at your fourth source, and it seems to be mostly a compendium of other websites, rather than any kind of primary source.
"There are 624,000 results in a Google search. There are biased sources and nonpartisan ones. Just read." This one is your own words. I have read; perhaps you also should have read a little deeper, or at least sorted thru the other 623,996 results until you found some that backed you up a little better.
I repeat my question: are the numbers given in the charts at http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm (the site I quoted) wrong? They show significant tax cuts, heavily weighted in favor of the highest income brackets.
Again, the tax cuts are indeed broad based. You have not taken into consideration the information that showed that the cuts as a percentage of income are indeed minimal by comparison to Reagan and Kennedy. The chart you cling to shows projections out five years, which is bogus to begin with. That will change with time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detnews.com
Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other group now pays a smaller share of the total income tax burden.
Another part of the CBO report shows how the income tax burden has shifted upward for the rich and downward for everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxfoundation.org
Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income.
These are just a few such quotes from the articles.
perhaps you also should have read a little deeper, or at least sorted thru the other 623,996 results until you found some that backed you up a little better.
I did quite a bit, actually. I just chose a few for fodder. I guarantee I spent heap big amount of time reading. Now who is being hypocritically snide?
IMHO.
