Kerry's Speech

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Can you imagine the sticker shock we would go through if we enacted a national sales tax? What would the tax rate be anyway? 30%? Native Americans would go from selling cigarrettes to cars, tv's and furniture.

I think we do well enough to revamp the tax code and cut most if not all the deductions. Let's get spending under control then we can think about lowering taxes again.

17% is what I think I remember reading.

I myself am for abolishing the income tax. Sure, that would necessitate massive, massive cuts, so certainly I'd allow for a transitional period.

[BrandonTO416]

Spartan, thanks for the reply. I can respect your views.

However, I disagree with the judeo-christian statements you made - and yes we have an increasingly larger amount of fundamentalist Christian beliefs slipping into our government this day in age - beliefs that contrast to the separation of church and state.

I don't think there are enough Republicans or Democrats that want to simplify the tax code. I certainly don't think Republicans by majority care about simplified taxes. They talk the talk, but when it comes time to reform taxes - they know huge cuts can't be made unless there's dire consequences.

Bush has decided to cut taxes (remind you - he has not simplified taxes, a matter of fact his reforms added many pages to the tax code in the form of new exemptions and rules) AND Bush has decided to accelerate spending. Its quite unprecendented when you also consider we are at war.

Secondly, Bush's tax cuts amount to 3% cuts to most brackets - except for income earners over $250,000. Their tax cut equates to over 7%! And Republicans agree with this, in a time of war and deficits?!?

If you don't think 45% is a good bracket for those above $300,000 in income, just ponder it for a while. We're at war. Deficits are getting out there because we're trying to manage a war on top of everything else. And someone who has an income in the form of $350,000 would only be paying 45% taxes on $50,000 of their income under these brackets.

Just think about it:

$1 million in income under my tax brackets would be taxed like this:

1st $40,000 minus $10,000 exemption - $30,000x.05 yields $1,500 in taxes.

The next $40,000 is taxed at 10% which yields $4,000.

The next $120,000 would be 25% which yields $30,000.

The next $100,000 would be 35% which yields $35,000.

The next $700,000 would be 45% which yields $315,000.

Added up - all taxes on each bracket is $385,500.

$1 million subtracted by $385,500 is $614,500.

You mean to tell me that you think someone with $614,500 in spendable income deserves more tax cuts in a time of war?

I agree - lower the taxes when we aren't in a war. But for crying out loud. Why feel sorry for someone netting $614,500!

I've never understood someone who has more sympathy for someone making that much money over someone who works hard and is taxed more then they should be.

Under my little tax idea, the vast majority of people would recieve a tax CUT. It would be simplified. And we'd have money for the government.

---

Under my plan, if you have income of $50,000 and are single, you'd only pay the following:

$40,000-$10,000=30,000x.05=$1,500

$10,000x.10=$1,000

Total tax bill for a single male/female making $50,000 under my proposal is $2,500.

As it stands today, most people will be paying upwards of $7,000 or more.

You don't think a real progressive, simplified income tax code would work huh? That gives a huge number of people a lot more expendable income - and a $1 million income earner would still have $614,500 under my plan - not including his/her market funds (which obviously anyone of that amount of wealth will have some type of stock, mutual fund, or interest bearing savings account).

---

Before you start saying that the rich create jobs therefore they need the tax breaks - remember this is IMCOME TAXES ONLY. Businesses create jobs - not WAGE/SALARY INCOMES PAID BY A BUSINESS. People only get income after businesses manage their money. This also doesn't include investment income.

Bill Gates only has an income of $865,000. Don't believe me?

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MSFT

Most his money is tied up in stocks, bonds, interest bearing accounts like money market accounts, MMMF's, and etc.

So many people forget that the super wealthy get their money from markets - not direct incomes.

[BrandonTO416]

Look, if this still sounds too complicated to matter. Think of it in these simplified terms.

What if someone making $1 million a year has to pay $100,000 more in taxes.

Well for every person making $1 million a year, there are millions of people making $50,000.

Let's pretend there were 10 million people making $50,000 a year that pays $7,000 in taxes under the current circumstances. Under my plan, they'd pay $2,500.

Spartan, do you think a couple people who get a $100,000 tax cut - yet have far more investment income that isn't even effected - will effect the economy more then 10 million people who just got $4,500 in tax cuts?

Think on it a while.

If you do think on it - I'm sure you'll come around and support a progressive income tax system to replace our mess.

[BrandonTO416]

By the way, if you still don't agree, fine. I'll be okay to agree to disagree.

HOWEVER, don't ever say you have never heard a true blue liberal give you a real argument to explain his/her stances and back it up.

In my opinion, if the Democrats were really liberal - they'd be all about trashing the current tax system and implementing something akin to my plan.

Something that will grow the economy, give the gov't the money it needs, and all around would be sound legislation.

[Dale]

I must be what some people call a, "Goldwater Republican", in that I don't agree that it is the function of the state to grow the economy, or to meet the needs of the populace.

[BrandonTO416]

While a progressive simplified income tax would promote economic development over the current system - its not government creating every job in the economy.

You gotta just be looking for some standpoint to disagree with for the sake of disagreeing, Dale. You'll obviously support Bush when he says he wants to grow the economy by cutting taxes. That's Bush's keep it simple-stupid platform. I've heard Bush's speeches: "you know how you grow the economy? You believe in the people. i want to cut taxes. more taxes that are cut, more people can invest and create jobs" Nothing but empty words to get votes when push comes to shove...

Just like John Edwards' hot air populist gibberish. I don't even believe what half the guy says - he's just a "look good" candidate. Same for Bush.

I'm probably one of the few people that finds Kerry more appealing then Edwards.

Say anything to get sympathy and votes.

Oh you gotta love politics. Reform as I'd like to see it has no chance in hell.

[Dale]

Well, here's a point of agreement - I agree that there's a lot of hot air on both sides. And here's another - I disagree that Bush's tax cuts are a wonderful thing. I disagree that we should regard government as doing me a favor by returning to me a small portion of the money I have earned.

[BrandonTO416]

Well all I can say about Bush's tax cuts - the vast, vast majority of the middle class has seen between 1-3% of an income tax cut. A matter of fact, due to the changes - and additions in the tax code - regarding exemptions and deductions, many people got increases. People who may have been exempt or able to deduct things under the Clinton system that passed in 1993 and didn't really change until 2001 weren't able to deduct or exempt those items under some of Bush's reform. The problem is - its so complicated, I don't honestly feel like typing out a sequel to the novel I wrote out above.

If a 3% tax cut means that much to you, while we are seeing massive deficits, cuts in needed programs like education, and massive deficits - then more power to you. I say "you" in a general sense - I am talking to the people not even on this forum.

Really, I feel like saying f*ck you to people like that. But you know, I'm really a nice guy.

[Dale]

Well all I can say about Bush's tax cuts - the vast, vast majority of the middle class has seen between 1-3% of an income tax cut. A matter of fact, due to the changes - and additions in the tax code - regarding exemptions and deductions, many people got increases. People who may have been exempt or able to deduct things under the Clinton system that passed in 1993 and didn't really change until 2001 weren't able to deduct or exempt those items under some of Bush's reform. The problem is - its so complicated, I don't honestly feel like typing out a sequel to the novel I wrote out above.

If a 3% tax cut means that much to you, while we are seeing massive deficits, cuts in needed programs like education, and massive deficits - then more power to you. I say "you" in a general sense - I am talking to the people not even on this forum.

Really, I feel like saying f*ck you to people like that. But you know, I'm really a nice guy.

Yes, heckles, I know that you're a nice guy. But I am not. I am not a "compassionate conservative". I am one of those conservatives who doesn't believe it is necessary to apologize for conservatism.

Believe you me, after I got through with you, you'd be crying for Bush and his merry (and apologetic) band of compassionate conservatives.

But I'm not wholly evil. I'd probably give you a five-year grace period to adjust to a brave new world of self-sufficiency and self-industry. B)

[Spartan]

First of all- I as a little irritated(about something else) when I wrote the stuff about religion. I can understand the need to remove under God, and the separation of church and state. I just get sick of all this extreme political correctness people have sometimes.

Anyway-

I don't think there are enough Republicans or Democrats that want to simplify the tax code. I certainly don't think Republicans by majority care about simplified taxes. They talk the talk, but when it comes time to reform taxes - they know huge cuts can't be made unless there's dire consequences.

Exactly.

Before you start saying that the rich create jobs therefore they need the tax breaks - remember this is IMCOME TAXES ONLY. Businesses create jobs - not WAGE/SALARY INCOMES PAID BY A BUSINESS. People only get income after businesses manage their money. This also doesn't include investment income.

Thats true- but people support businesses by buying their product. I don't think the rich need tax breaks. I don't feel sorry for them either. Its just that something doesn't seems right about the situation right now. They pay most of the taxes already in real dollars and in terms of percentage (which is fine) and then people want to raise taxes more.

Something that will grow the economy, give the gov't the money it needs, and all around would be sound legislation.

I would rather cut some of the government down and give people the money they need. That is one major difference between us. You think the government needs the money, I think people should keep their own money.

I can agree to disagree on this

[Spartan]

I must be what some people call a, "Goldwater Republican", in that I don't agree that it is the function of the state to grow the economy, or to meet the needs of the populace.

I tend to agree with that. But i realize that is somewhat ideal, and that to totally convert our goverment to that style would not be easy, nor pretty.

[Spartan]

Well all I can say about Bush's tax cuts - the vast, vast majority of the middle class has seen between 1-3% of an income tax cut. A matter of fact, due to the changes - and additions in the tax code - regarding exemptions and deductions, many people got increases. People who may have been exempt or able to deduct things under the Clinton system that passed in 1993 and didn't really change until 2001 weren't able to deduct or exempt those items under some of Bush's reform. The problem is - its so complicated, I don't honestly feel like typing out a sequel to the novel I wrote out above.

If a 3% tax cut means that much to you, while we are seeing massive deficits, cuts in needed programs like education, and massive deficits - then more power to you. I say "you" in a general sense - I am talking to the people not even on this forum.

Really, I feel like saying f*ck you to people like that. But you know, I'm really a nice guy.

I just fail to see how tax increases will help the economy and everyone. If you are a business owner, and you suddenly have to pay more money to the government, you arent going to hire some new people.

If you are a regular guy, and you have to pay more money to the government, you will spend less so that you can pay the taxes.

Taxes are a necessary evil, this is true. The government should be made to adjust to its income like people do. I am aware that the war creates additional funding requirements, and all these exapnsions to the government. However, I also think that there are more indirect ways to increase the governments budget. Making taxes easier to pay is a very good start. Simplification is a great thing. Setting up the tarrifs and what not so that over time will will not have such a large trade defficit is another way. Alowing people to start up businesses easier would ultimately crate jobs, which would create more taxes.

[Dale]

I tend to agree with that. But i realize that is somewhat ideal, and that to totally convert our goverment to that style would not be easy, nor pretty.

I do quite agree that it would be difficult, if impossible, given America'a leftward lurch since, say, FDR, and its aggrandizment of the state.

[BrandonTO416]

You've misunderstood my argument.

We need a scalable progressive income tax - not higher taxes on everyone. Again, the tax idea I laid out would lower taxes on the vast majority of people and give lots more income to them. The $200,000+ income tax brackets would pay more obviously, but its not going to bankrupt anyone, nor is it too much to ask in a time of war. People are forgetting that we are AT WAR whether we like it or not. What happened to the partiotic conservatives who believe in giving something up for their country in a time of need?? We hear all the time that we need to give something up - but we aren't asked to do anything. If all we're going to do is watch the war on CNN - we need to pay taxes and quit denying the fact that it costs money - and pass that debt onto future generations (which eventually means higher taxes - whether we acknowledge it or the next generation does).

And I didn't say we need higher business taxes. Something people forget is that businesses aren't taxed on the wage/salary income tax rates - they have a completely different tax code for them. Wage/salary income taxes are only applicable to incomes directly to people.

Corporations pay a corporate income tax only on profits - which is fair I think to encourage job growth. But even then - you'd be surprised that most corporations - including the former Enron - found loopholes to pay absolutely no taxes, and in many cases has a subsidy given back to them in some shape or form.

I believe in private enterprise like the vast majority of us, I just believe in a more fair system vs. a less fair system. What I've typed out represents what I consider more fair over less fair.

Nothing is perfect, I understand that. But why not try and make it better?

[BrandonTO416]

A sound financial plan for the US government of today - to pay off past mistakes and present mistakes - would be to create a temporary tax.

Instead of dumping everything into general funds - why don't we have a bill put forth that says we need a national 5% sales tax. But this won't be a general fund tax - its a tax where funds would be put into a dedicated debt payoff account so that it can pay down deficits. And put a 5 year limitation on the tax - so that it expires automatically after 5 years.

If you forced the legislation to be inactive after 5 years, and you dedicate ALL income from that tax to debt reduction - we could have a debt free country in 5 years.

...And you implement a tax plan like I proposed to lower taxes for the vast majority of citizens...

You'd have a sound fiscal policy that reduces taxes in the LONG RUN - in the short run we will have that pesky 5% sales tax though.

But debt will be paid off and in a matter of years we'll have so many problems fixed.

Won't happen though. Democrats and Republicans are opposed to real change. For what its worth, I think national Democrats are more up to the task. Republicans never have been fiscal disciplined politicians. With the way we are told - you'd think otherwise. Looking at past budgets suggests otherwise.

You want to know the only time before Bill Clinton that the deficit was lowered as a percentage of the GDP? Jimmy Carter.

That's right - a "failed president" with 8 million more jobs after he became President was the last one to reduce the deficit as a percentage of our GDP before Clinton.

Before him, it certainly wasn't Nixon...

[BrandonTO416]

For what its worth - the same deal is happening in Canada. The Progressive Conservative party racked up huge deficits in the 1980's up there.

You guessed it, the current Canadian leadership control of the Liberal party now has government surpluses and has ran them for a while. Canada today has a budget surplus in 2004. LOL

What you may find SHOCKING is that the Liberal party implemented income tax cuts in Canada starting in 2001. LOL

Its such of a MYTH that conservatives are sound fiscal policy makers.

The FACTS PROVE otherwise - not only here, but abroad.

A candidate that screams lower taxes all the time does not equate sound financial planning.

[BrandonTO416]

Here I've typed out another pointless series of arguments. I should be doing work... LOL

[BrandonTO416]

First of all- I as a little irritated(about something else) when I wrote the stuff about religion. I can understand the need to remove under God, and the separation of church and state. I just get sick of all this extreme political correctness people have sometimes.

Anyway-

I absolutely agree. All this politically correct non-sense that our laws were founded on GOD and Jesus. Many liberals agree - just ask Bill Maher.