Dire economic predictions - DPChallenge Forums

02/27/2004 07:28:00 PM · #2

The International Monetary Fund has already voiced concern about this issue...A very conservative organization.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/27/2004 07:31:13 PM · #3

So I wonder if all the big (ahem) tax cuts we all got will have to be used for paying this off when Bush is out of office and enjoying his rich life with Cheney in Texas? I'm sure the rich won't be paying this off.

This after Alan Greenspan yesterday recommended cutting social security.
Article here

Message edited by author 2004-02-27 19:43:10.

garrywhite2

Canon EOS-7D

02/27/2004 07:43:08 PM · #4

I may be all alone on this but I don't think the Bush Budget has anything to do with Bush. Business interests wields the greatest political power in the US and I believe exerts enormous control over both major political parties. I don't believe if Gore was elected, nor if Kerry is elected that the shape of the economy would be changed.

I will most likely vote for Kerry, but not for ecconomic reasons.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/27/2004 07:44:42 PM · #5

Agreed...they're all in the pockets of big business.

Originally posted by garrywhite2:

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/27/2004 07:48:35 PM · #6

Tax cuts - How they really work
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

Damn greedy rich bastards. ::rolls eyes::

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/27/2004 08:02:14 PM · #7

i have a much better idea. the rich can have america. send all us poor to europe and the carribean :)

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/27/2004 08:26:30 PM · #8

I'm sure we could get you a ticket to Haiti for pretty cheap... ;)

02/27/2004 09:08:06 PM · #9

hahahaha

but really, thats not funny..

Patents4u

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/27/2004 09:45:28 PM · #10

Originally posted by ScottK:

[i]Tax cuts - How they really work
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

That's always been one of my favorites - and I think, in today's numbers, you can boost even higher the amount Nos. 9 and 10 pay compared to the rest. The top 10 or 20% of taxpayers pay an unbelievably high percentage of all income tax in the US.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

02/27/2004 11:36:05 PM · #11

You think they got rid of the welfare state? Guess again...corporate welfare is still alive and kicking us all in you know what! Take for example stadium construction. They expect to use taxpayer money for these projects that cost way beyond forcasted expenditures but the owners win big as they get to charge for ticket prices that the common man can not afford. Sports has become a past time for the rich and famous but I have to watch it on TV if I want to see it, and then may even have to pay for it. I find no redeeming value in spectator sports anymore, unless I'm a participant.

muckpond

Nikon D200

02/28/2004 08:12:12 AM · #12

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I find no redeeming value in spectator sports anymore, unless I'm a participant.

But if you're participating, is it still a spectator sport? :)

Seriously, I get what you say. I'm just playin'

ganders

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/28/2004 08:31:04 AM · #13

Originally posted by Patents4u:

The top 10 or 20% of taxpayers pay an unbelievably high percentage of all income tax in the US.

Although, by definition, they are best able to pay.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/28/2004 10:53:08 AM · #14

Originally posted by garrywhiye2:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Agreed...they're all in the pockets of big business.

They may all be in the pocket of big business but to use that as a reason to excuse the current administration for where the economy has gone defies recent history. When Clinton was president we found a way to balance the budget (and, indeed, develope a large surplus) and we had full employment. How long before we wake up and realize that "trickle down" doesn't work.

jab119

02/28/2004 12:11:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Oly...finally someone who thinks like me, well....actually I gave up on sports long ago and don't even watch it, because of the over paid salaries and the extremely high cost involved in going to watch a live game.

I travel a lot for work and have to pay stadium tax and such in the cities I visit, on hotels and rental cars. Im sure this year alone (just a mere 2 months) I have paid well over $200 in taxes for sports complexes I will never visit or use or care for for that matter.
Well I dont pay the taxes, my company does, which comes out of the bottom line of the companies earnings, so we have to jack our rates up and find interesting ways to recoup our expenses, so the user of our service has to wind up paying more....

its a never ending battle

James

02/28/2004 12:46:17 PM · #16

There is an alternative way to fund the government while fairly taxing the rich, the middle-class, and the poor. It's called the FAIR TAX and the bill to establish it ( H.R.25 ) languishes in Congress because not enough Congessmen have the character to push it along. The essence of the FAIR TAX is a federal consumption tax on all NEW goods ( the kind the rich buy ) but NO TAX on USED goods ( the kind the poor buy ).
Do yourself a favor and check it out: Here's a brief overview:

"The FairTax is a consumption tax designed to replace the entire federal income tax system, including personal, payroll, corporate, self-employment, capital gains, gift, and inheritance taxes. The FairTax will allow Americans to keep 100% of their paychecks, it will dramatically reduce pre-tax prices, and it will fully fund the Federal government, including Social Security and Medicare.

With the FairTax, you will get to take home 100% of your paycheck. No income taxes or payroll taxes will be withheld from your paycheck, pension, or Social Security check.

With the FairTax, if you choose to buy any new good or service for yourself, a consumption tax of 23%, will be added into the price. If you choose to buy used goods -- used car, used home, used clothing -- you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. So, in deciding what to buy, you get to choose whether or not you will pay the federal consumption tax.

Perhaps most importantly, to ensure that no American will pay tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the 23% consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, and lowers the tax burden on everyone else."

For more info, please visit the Fair Tax web site:

//www.fairtax.org

Ron

02/28/2004 01:26:01 PM · #17

I think that if Gore was elected he probably would have continued Clinton's economics (although hard to say for sure what he would have done after we were attacked on 9/11). I am certainly holding the Bush administration responsible for this budget. His administration forcasts that we'll be in a surplus in 5 years, but he's lied before and I'm sure this is just another one.

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by garrywhiye2:
I may be all alone on this but I don't think the Bush Budget has anything to do with Bush. Business interests wields the greatest political power in the US and I believe exerts enormous control over both major political parties. I don't believe if Gore was elected, nor if Kerry is elected that the shape of the economy would be changed.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Agreed...they're all in the pockets of big business.

They may all be in the pocket of big business but to use that as a reason to excuse the current administration for where the economy has gone defies recent history. When Clinton was president we found a way to balance the budget (and, indeed, develope a large surplus) and we had full employment. How long before we wake up and realize that "trickle down" doesn't work.

02/28/2004 01:29:37 PM · #18

Ron, the Consumption tax sounds good but I doubt that big business would go for it because it would cut down on the volume of sales they would do. I would love to see something like that pass because it would be a big step towards resource conservation.

02/28/2004 01:59:19 PM · #19

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I am certainly holding the Bush administration responsible for this budget. His administration forcasts that we'll be in a surplus in 5 years, but he's lied before and I'm sure this is just another one.

OK, Olyuzi, here's your DPC Challenge for today. You say he ( Bush ) has lied before. Enlighten us ( or at least me ). What lie has he told? Remember, a lie is a statment that was KNOWN to be false when it was made.

Ron

02/28/2004 02:20:51 PM · #20

First, as to the Budget Deficit:

When considering a deficit the critical measure is not the dollar amount. The severity of a deficit is measured by percentages; more particularly, the percentage of the total economy.

In the past the United States has suffered under deficits equal to 6% of the GDP, and more. The current budget deficit will be just under 4% of the GDP. This is NOT a record, no matter how hard the press tries to make it so.

Look at it this way. Let's say that your family spends $5,000 more than it makes in 2004. Is that bad? If you only make $25,000 year, it's bad. To eliminate your deficit you have to cut your spending by 20%. But what if your total income is $500,000? Then you only have to cut your spending by 1%. Not a really big deal.

Now as to the Democratic Candidates response:

The bottom line is that there is no Democrat running for President who would spend any less than George Bush. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for ( ex-candidate ) Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al Sharpton. While it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.

Food for thought.

Ron

02/28/2004 02:24:52 PM · #21

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am certainly holding the Bush administration responsible for this budget. His administration forcasts that we'll be in a surplus in 5 years, but he's lied before and I'm sure this is just another one.

OK, Olyuzi, here's your DPC Challenge for today. You say he ( Bush ) has lied before. Enlighten us ( or at least me ). What lie has he told? Remember, a lie is a statment that was KNOWN to be false when it was made.

Ron

here is your proof:
weapons of mass distraction

Patents4u

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/28/2004 02:30:12 PM · #22

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by Patents4u:
The top 10 or 20% of taxpayers pay an unbelievably high percentage of all income tax in the US.

Although, by definition, they are best able to pay.

I don't think there is much debate about that - the issue is raised because people buy into the fallacy that tax cuts are geared or set-up specifically to help the rich (even when the cuts apply to all taxpayers). Rabble rousers can say tax cuts 'help' the rich, but that's just because the rich are the ones paying almost all of the taxes. That's one point the story illustrates, as well as my statement you quoted.

But a question does come to mind - just because the rich CAN pay almost all of the taxes, should they HAVE to?

Message edited by author 2004-02-28 14:35:15.

Patents4u

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/28/2004 02:34:40 PM · #23

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

here is your proof:
[url=//www.madmordegon.com/

Have not/will not click on that link...because I know it is yet again another link to the political propaganda you've posted in nearly every forum and every thread on this site.

Yawn. Tiresome.

(Do not take this as support for any party, issue or statement - just annoyance at the constant posting of the same thing!).

02/28/2004 02:42:44 PM · #24

I DID click on it, but am unwilling to spend 35 minutes at Broadband Speed to wait for an obvious political hack job. A video cannot be researched. I'm asking for "a lie" quoted in a reputable media, with attributions ( time, place, etc. ) and the "proof" that the speaker knew at the time that it was a falsehood. I don't want innuendo, I don't want unsubstantiated accusations, I want facts.

Ron