Democrats Promise MORE Tax Cuts????

[DrMaddVibe]

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 1, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

Democrats have long attacked President Bush for the historic tax cuts he ushered through Congress during his first term and have promised to reverse at least some of them.
But among their top priorities when they take over Congress next month is passing a permanent tax cut of their own.
Included in their "Six for '06" platform that they say helped them win majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats promised to: "Make college tuition deductible from taxes, permanently."
Their tax cut promise is neither an election-year gimmick, Democrats say, nor a reversal in their long-standing opposition to Mr. Bush's tax cuts.
"Democrats have made it clear that the middle class will be our priority and making college more affordable is a key concern of working families," said incoming House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat.
They have been less clear, however, about their plans for other tax cuts that expire in 2010 and or how to raise the revenue required to institute the "pay-go" rules they have promised. Those rules prohibit adding any new spending to the budget or cutting taxes unless there is money in the budget.
Though Republicans dramatically sliced taxes without money in the budget, they now can point to historic levels of tax receipts because of the healthy economy that was, they say, spurred by the tax cut.
The only hints from Democrats about their tax plans have come from Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who will be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He has told reporters that tax increases are on the table, but Democratic leaders quickly reined him in and continue to adamantly insist that they have no such plans for the time being.
The tuition tax deduction, along with a handful of other popular tax cuts, have been on the table in Congress ever since they expired at the end of the 2005 tax year. Tax filers next spring will not be able to deduct tuition costs unless something is done retroactively before then.
The tax cut is such a popular one that Republicans have tried for months to pair it with the elimination of the estate tax -- an idea most Democrats in Congress vehemently oppose. Though the elimination of the death tax had majority support in the Senate with Democratic backers, it could not pass the 60-vote threshold that Democrats required. So, Republicans added an increase in the minimum wage to further sweeten the deal.
Democrats still refused. And Republicans refused to strip out the popular tax deductions and pass them on their own.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and outgoing chairman of the Finance Committee, has been critical of both sides for not already approving the tax relief.
"It's all because of political calculations," he said. "That's a shame."
Mr. Grassley and others have urged Republican leaders to go ahead and approve the popular tax cuts and make those cuts permanent before the end of the year.
"The election is over; the political outcome is certain," Mr. Grassley said. "We need to give taxpayers the same certainty about tax provisions that affect their bottom line. I hope the House and Senate use the lame-duck session to redeem themselves from lameness."
Regardless of whether Republicans can accomplish this in the coming weeks, Democrats have every intention of doing so when they take over.
"Democrats have made it a priority to cut taxes for the middle class," said Will Edgar, a spokesman for incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "The American people made clear they want change, and we're ready to work with the Republicans to move America forward."
Mr. Hoyer signaled a similar eagerness to work across the aisle on the matter.
"Democrats have been strong supporters of extending the college-tuition deduction and would like to join with our Republican colleagues to pass an extension before Congress adjourns for the holidays," he said. "Middle-class families deserve to know that this deduction will be there to help them pay for their children's education next year."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061130-105644-6484r





I thought they didn't like tax cuts? They sure as hell bashed Bush over them.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe



I thought they didn't like tax cuts? They sure as hell bashed Bush over them.

and i thought the democrats didn't like tax cuts that largely benefited just the rich, like dividend and estate tax cuts.

after all the haranging about the horrible, unfair "death tax," it affects such a small amount of the population. and only that population that has at least $1 million, or $2 million if they're married.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I thought they didn't like tax cuts? They sure as hell bashed Bush over them.

Do you seriously not see the distinction here? Please tell me you're just pushing buttons.

[FORD]

Not only should they eliminate the tax cuts, for the rich, they should also eliminate the tax LOOPHOLES.

However, a tax cut such as this one, making college tuition deductible, is a very smart move. But I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans tried to slip in some fucked up ammendment that would eliminate Pell grants or some other form of financial aid. Or raise interest rates on student loans to ridiculous proportions.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Do you seriously not see the distinction here? Please tell me you're just pushing buttons.


I honestly believe he doesn't see the difference between middle class tax relief, and tax relief to the wealthiest 1%.

[Hardrock69]

They could just as easily raise the ceiling on no taxes owed (say under 20,000) or some shit and leave the tax rates in place for those who earn over 1 million per year.....

The main thing being: Give tax cuts to those that need them. Rich assholes don't need tax cuts. They have fucking accountants that make sure they get away with not paying any taxes anyway.

If they can close loopholes that is fine.

I do think they Federal Tax System (though completely illegal) is broken and needs to be fixed.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Hardrock69


I do think they Federal Tax System (though completely illegal)

um, i think you mean completely legal...




Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

if it's in the constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html), it's legal...

[Hardrock69]

No.

1. A certain number of states are required to vote for ratification of an amendment.

The number of states that actually voted for ratification of that amendment was less than that required.

2. People have won court cases recently because they have pointed out that nowhere in the tax code does it state you are required to pay taxes on income (UNLESS derived from foreign sources).

It all boils down to the following: Do you want to have the Gestapo seize all your crap, and do you want to spend a lot of time fighting the system over it?

You can win, but you risk going through a ton of bullshit over it.

There are enough loopholes in the tax code that you can reduce your taxable income as it is. Rich people do it all the time.

I have more important things to do in life than to fight the IRS, as I have a kick-ass CPA to guide me so that I pay taxes when required, but only when required.

And of course, I live in the US.

What could be more patriotic than to help pay for the life we live in the US?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Hardrock69


1. A certain number of states are required to vote for ratification of an amendment.

The number of states that actually voted for ratification of that amendment was less than that required.



yes, 3/4 of the states are required to ratify an amendment.

the amendment was passed by congress in 1909, when there were 46 states in the union. link (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0763770.html)

3/4 of 46 states is 35.

by 1913, 36 states had ratified the 16th amendment. link (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml)

dude, i don't know where you're getting your info, but it's valid law. sorry.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
...


I thought they didn't like tax cuts? They sure as hell bashed Bush over them.

Um, that would depend on THE KIND OF TAX CUT. Did you notice the repeated phrase "middle class" in the article anywhere? Or did you even bother to read it?

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
dude, i don't know where you're getting your info, but it's valid law. sorry.


You are free to believe as you wish:

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

[Warham]

The top 2% of income earners pay 98% of all federal taxes. That means by definition that tax breaks will always go to the rich.

You can't give a huge tax break to somebody making $20,000 a year, because they ain't paying that much to begin with.

Typical class warfare.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Warham
The top 2% of income earners pay 98% of all federal taxes. That means by definition that tax breaks will always go to the rich.

You can't give a huge tax break to somebody making $20,000 a year, because they ain't paying that much to begin with.

Typical class warfare.

well, rather than lobby for the elimination of the "unfair death" tax and the dividend tax, perhaps the administration could have been advocating for the elimination of the alternative minimum tax. that thing hits the middle class who DO pay a decent amount of taxes. and it will continue to hit an ever growing number of people.



(and i get your point, but i think the 98% figure is probably a bit too high...)

[Warham]

I'm sorry, knuckle.

I was off by quite a few percent.

Top 1% pay 33% of taxes.

Top 5% pay 54% of taxes.

Top 10% pay 66% of taxes.

Top 50% pay 98% of taxes.

The top 1% of wage earners pay nearly ten times the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay.

The top 50% of taxpayers make 86% of the country's income.

The bottom 50% make 14%, thus they pay far less taxes.

The median income in 2003 was $29,000 a year.

The top 1% of taxpayers make $300,000 a year or more, which isn't 'rich' by my definition.

[Warham]

Basically, when Democrats talk about a tax cut for the rich, they are talking about anybody making $29,000 a year or more.

[knuckleboner]

no problem. didn't diminish your point.

but, i think given a median income of $29,000 (which, as you know means 50% of the people earn less than that), $300,000 probably qualifies you as rich. as in you have your choice of significant housing; you have the ability to make substantial investments; the necessities of food, clothing and health care are completely covered; you're probably taking rather good vacations, and if you don't own the latest technological goodies, it's probably because you simply don't want them. i'd say that's rich.


(though i'd have still rather seen an elimination, or at least an acknowledgement of the AMT by the republicans...)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The top 2% of income earners pay 98% of all federal taxes. That means by definition that tax breaks will always go to the rich.

Where exactly are you getting these statistics? Exactly whom is defined as "rich?" Corporations (but not individuals)?


You can't give a huge tax break to somebody making $20,000 a year, because they ain't paying that much to begin with.

Yeah, but you can screw them over by passing their windfall onto the oil companies on your watch, while crowing that targeting specific tax cuts (i.e. the estate tax) to the richest Americans really benefits anybody...


Typical class warfare.


Yes, your side's war on the middle class whilst showing unabashed, corruption-driven, corporate favoritism! Mi$$ion accomplished!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Basically, when Democrats talk about a tax cut for the rich, they are talking about anybody making $29,000 a year or more.

Actually, it's at least over $200,000 a year. But don't let facts stop you, as you never have...

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
The top 1% of wage earners pay nearly ten times the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay.
The top 50% of taxpayers make 86% of the country's income.

Of course. They probably make more than ten times the amount of income the bottom feeders make as well.
They make more money, they pay more taxes.


Originally posted by Warham
The bottom 50% make 14%, thus they pay far less taxes.


Duh. They make only 14% of National Income, so they pay only 14% of National taxes.

Are we talking income tax here? I mean you have so many sales taxes on everything. A lower income person is less able to afford to pay stuff like that, because each penny of tax on gas, cigarettes, booze, and the general local & state sales taxes is a larger percentage of the income of someone making 20k per year vs. a millionaire.

Right?

SO the above post that rich people pay more taxes is a non-statement.

:D

On a relevant note, There is a lot of stuff about both political parties I do not like.

That is why I do not believe in "political parties" as such.

I believe in the Naked Chicks , Booze, Pot and ROCK AND ROLL Party Babay!!!!!
:cool:

[Warham]

The point is, let's not penalize people for making more money in our country. We don't live in a socialist society.

If you are making $15,000 a year and can't afford cigarettes or booze, don't buy them.

Like I said, rich people pay MORE in taxes, so any time there is a tax break, they are going to get MORE back in return, by definition. Everybody that lives in the US should pay some kind of tax, even if it's $1 a year, deferred or whatever.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, it's at least over $200,000 a year. But don't let facts stop you, as you never have...

That isn't rich, by my definition.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Exactly whom is defined as "rich?"

The Democrats think anybody who isn't collecting food stamps or welfare is rich.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Warham
That isn't rich, by my definition.

if you asked 1,000 random people if a salary of $200,000 a year qualified a person as rich, roughly what do you think the response would be?

[Warham]

33%?

Rich to me is making at least seven figures a year.

[Hardrock69]

So you are saying that 33% of 1,000 people asked if "$200,000 a year in income would make a person rich" responded.

So 333 1/3 people responded to the question.

Mmmkay.

That really tells us something.

But I agree.....'rich' to me is a million bucks plus per year.

[Warham]

No, I was saying that probably around 33% of a sample of people would say $200k a year is being 'rich'.

[knuckleboner]

just so we're clear, in 2004, according to the U.S. government, 2.7% of all households had incomes of $200,000 or more.

and that includes dual income households (meaning that personal incomes are lower, since some of these households have more than 1 wage earner.)

84.3% of all households have incomes (again, household income) of less than $100,000.


i can't believe that despite that, 66.7% of people would believe that $200,000 isn't rich.

apparently, you guys just hang around a lot of rich folk!:D

census bureau income distribution data (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The point is, let's not penalize people for making more money in our country. We don't live in a socialist society.

:rolleyes:

No, we should just become weaker and more stratified until the middle classes are extinguished and we have only a polarized society of rich and the destitute.

This must be the self-serving hypocritical part of your Christian world view kicking in again...


If you are making $15,000 a year and can't afford cigarettes or booze, don't buy them.

If you're trying to support a family on $15K a year, you're probably living in a shelter...


Like I said, rich people pay MORE in taxes, so any time there is a tax break, they are going to get MORE back in return, by definition.

Not proportionally to their income.

Especially when the tax break is specifically designed to benefit the rich, like the estate tax.


Everybody that lives in the US should pay some kind of tax, even if it's $1 a year, deferred or whatever.

Oh yeah, people bankrupted by medical bills should have to pay taxes too while Paris Hilton does nothing but drink and choke on rancid dick all day?

See my first comment in this post.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
That isn't rich, by my definition.

Re-read the thread title, and get back to me on that one...

[Warham]

Democrats never cut taxes, unless you are talking about John Kennedy back in '62.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
:rolleyes:

No, we should just become weaker and more stratified until the middle classes are extinguished and we have only a polarized society of rich and the destitute.

This must be the self-serving hypocritical part of your Christian world view kicking in again...


Alright, then. What's your solution to the problem? Tax the hell out of corporations and rich people like Bill Gates so that the 4.5% unemployment rate skyrockets?



Especially when the tax break is specifically designed to benefit the rich, like the estate tax.


And that's fine, because who provides the jobs in this country? Poor people? No, people who are RICH.


Oh yeah, people bankrupted by medical bills should have to pay taxes too while Paris Hilton does nothing but drink and choke on rancid dick all day?


Oh, is every poor person in this country poor because they are bankrupt from medical bills, Nick? Or might it have to do with lack of education?

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
And that's fine, because who provides the jobs in this country? Poor people? No, people who are RICH.

Yet if there was no workforce, the RICH would have no jobs to provide.

It is thanks to the common man that the RICH are able to earn anything.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Democrats never cut taxes, unless you are talking about John Kennedy back in '62.

Then what are they doing now genius?

And you keep rightfully crowing about JFK lowing taxes (mostly for the middle classes), but you neglect to mention that Reagan and Bush 41 both raised taxes...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Alright, then. What's your solution to the problem? Tax the hell out of corporations and rich people like Bill Gates so that the 4.5% unemployment rate skyrockets?

Tax them how they should be taxed. And close loopholes that allow them to register the ol' HQ in the Bahamas while still enjoying favorable financial incentives...

BTW, since when have corporations not "downsized" or "outsourced" proportionally to tax cuts? They been doing that all along, so they just fvck America by paying less taxes while still adding to unemployment...

You know?



And that's fine, because who provides the jobs in this country? Poor people? No, people who are RICH.

In this country? India maybe. Or do you mean like when they hire illegal immigrants to chop their hedges?

Wooooo-hoooooooohhh!!! That economy is roaring!!

Actually, it's small businesses that provide the most jobs.

Specifically, how do the rich contribute? What goods and services do they contribute? Which retailers do they purchase from?

I always thought it was the emerging middle class infected with consumerism that drove the economy, much like the post-War boom (WWII) was driven by the New Deal coupled with a mass migration of men from the armed services demanding goods and housing they were exposed too in the military, and with a pocket full of new money from veterans' benefits...



Oh, is every poor person in this country poor because they are bankrupt from medical bills, Nick? Or might it have to do with lack of education?

I was speaking of "bankruptcies." Actually, over half of all bankruptcies ARE a result of skyrocketing medical bills as a result of major terminal diseases...

Oh, you want to talk about the inequality of educational funding now? Kudos, your cold conservative heart masked with a thin veil of Christian-mongering is just starting to figure out that the domestic and foreign policies of the US are very much controlled and driven by the monied classes at the expense of the middle and working classes.

And BTW, why do you keep saying "poor" and "rich?"

The article has to do with the "middle class," dope...

[scamper]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Rich assholes don't need tax cuts.

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Why do you hate people that have money, and how much does it take to get on the rich asshole list?