randomWalks

Aren't you the one that said that corporations don't even have to pay taxes?



How should we interpret this information? Is it correct?

the reason i bring it up is...



for the 15.2 tax returns filed for individuals that earn less than $50,000 a year, this works at finding income from the $26.9 billion generated from their dividend income. or money that would be generated were there no tax on it.



Bush's friends, which I assume you mean to be the 200,000 tax returns on individual income that is more than $1 million, benefit equally.



it does seem like a tax cut for everyone.



everyone that invests in the stock market. i guess.

sorry, the 15.2 million tax returns.



i misquoted myself.

I read somewhere else (not anyplace totally quotable) that even though 50% of the workforce owns stock, most of the average Joes own it in forms like 401Ks, where your dividends are reinvested and not taxable, but are taxed when you take your money out. I guess like a standard IRA. This tax cut will only benefit people who own stocks in the more traditional manner and actually collect dividends.



I haven't done any research on this and I'm just repeating something I heard elsewhere; I take no responsibility whatsoever for any "facts" I've mentioned.

Heh...the BBC article mentioned the "opposition Democratic Party."

I don't think I ever said corps. don't have to pay taxes. I may have said that they do not pay taxes, because many do not.

"A tax cut for everone" =



A distributional analysis released by Citizens for Tax Justice shows that when the tax plan is fully phased in:



* The typical tax cut for the median income taxpayer will be $600 a year.

* For the 78 million taxpayers in the lowest 60 percent of the income scale, the tax cut will average $347 a year.

* In contrast, at the top of the income scale the average tax cut will be $53,000 annually—virtually identical to the $54,000 annual tax cut proposed by the President.

zagg,



that may be more accurate, but not entirely true.



investment, capital investment, paying wages and matching those taxes that workers pay are all duties every corporation must do.



when they don't do it, well, that's bad.

Plus, the top income tax bracket's tax rate will be lowered from 38.6% to 35%, while the two lowest income tax brackets (10% and 15%) will remain unchanged.

Yes. And we've seen how good corporations are at all of those things. Seems like they are good at paying CEOs, not so much workers.

My favorite representation of the "opposition Democrats".

zagg,



but if you have more money, of course you're going to get more money back.

yes, but if you look at the cuts proportionately, as a percentage of total income, there's still a major gap.

Especially when the lowest two brackets receive *no cuts at all*. I did see some talk about expanding the lowest bracket from $12K to $14K, which'll save ya $100.

"If payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes and other federal taxes are included as well as the income tax, the burden shifts down dramatically.



McIntyre's numbers show that in 2001, the richest 1 percent earned 18 percent of total pretax income and paid 25.1 percent of all federal taxes - a proportion he doesn't consider excessive.



...



By McIntyre's calculation, the lowest 20 percent of households (average $9,400 annual pretax income) paid, on average, 7 percent of their pretax income in total federal taxes in 2001. The next 20 percent ($20,700) paid 13 percent, and the middle 20 percent ($34,300) paid 17 percent. The fourth 20 percent ($56,100) paid 21 percent. The next 15 percent ($796,200) paid 21 percent, and the top 1 percent ($1,028,000) paid 26 percent - maybe less, suspects McIntyre."

just heard on NPR that the Republicans are extending job benefits.



a jab at the "opposition's" plan.



now one thing I don't really get is...



the democrats want to spend government money, which raises the price level, and makes life more expensive for all.



the republicans want to give money to the people, gaps or no gaps.



now, that's what i don't get.

And somehow people having more money to spend doesn't cause inflation? Is spending govt. money the *only* thing that causes inflation? Demand for goods and services doesn't cause inflation? If it was explained to me as sloppily as you've stated it, I wouldn't get it either.



And okay, maybe the "Republicans" want to give money to the people, but the argument here is that they're giving a much larger share proportionately to the people that *already have* a much larger share. For example, if they were to increase the lowest tax bracket as I mentioned earlier, *everyone* from top to bottom would save $100 in taxes. But at the same time as doing this, the administration is also proposing to cut the tax percentages of everyone but the lowest two tax brackets. Among other things.

i didn't explain it sloppily. please.



and demand doesn't cause inflation. demand is a measure of a quantity that can be bought, it doesn't actually mean that people demand things, more than what is available or less than what is available.



demand and supply usually even each other out.



government spending isn't the only cause of inflation or deflation.



more money in the system can decrease the price level, just as much as it can increase the price level.



federal funds rates, borrowing rates, the velocity of spending, the sensitivity of the market to fluctuations in spending or saving, etc. it's a big picture.

supply then being the quantity available to purchase.



it's all basically a measure of expectation.



with more money in the system, and fewer jobs, my reasoning (read: MY reasoning, not everyone's) is that with more money, and the price level a little high, the price level will lower because more people are able to spend.

Well, I would think that merchants would be inclined to lower prices with less money available for spending, and raise them when there's more general discretionary income. But you're correct in that it's not just about *how much* money is in the system, it's who's spending it (if at all) and on what. I believe my concern and the concern of other folks here (?) is that Bush's plan, and supply-side economics in general, puts money into the system, just into the wrong places.

maybe i'm wrong, but i wouldn't call bush's economic principles "supply-side," though you are probably relating him to those he's modeled his cabinet after, ideologically speaking, like Reagan.



But his economics is different. If you can even call it economics.



They are totally shifting the emphasis from trickle down and supply side to more fed-induced, and investor specific principles.

besides, the supply rate of dollars is already high on the us side, because the exchange rate is so low.



and the quantity theory of money states that if you have more money in the system it raises the price level.



distributors and sellers don't "lower" prices. costs shift depending on demand.

It should be noted as an amendment to my original post that Congress got its act together and did at least extend jobless benefits another 13 weeks.

right, i said that two days ago, zagg.



see above.



but, not to offend, seriously. this is truly a weird twisty political machine, this economic emphasis Bush uses. could be because everyone thinks that our economy is spiraling out of control.

Another voice, The Financial Times' Christopher Caldwell writes:

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that those earning more than $316,895 will get an average of $13,243 out of this deal; those with $21,350 in income will save $47. It is no wonder that against such detractors, the president levies the accusation of "class warfare"."

...

For the middle-class benefits in this plan are wholly illusory. The middle class does not simply get a smaller gain than the upper class; it loses ground. Take the most progressive corner of the president's plan, the $400 increase in the per-child tax credit. For a family of four, the change amounts to $800 a year. That seems like a useful, if modest, gain. But it is not. It is a dead loss.

This is because, particularly in a modern economy, relative wealth matters. The middle class, in certain circumstances, must compete against the rich as if in a luxury market - not just for luxury goods but for the staples of life.

His full column.

if you're a shallow butthead that's true.

Looks like we spoke too soon. That benefit extension was not what it seemed. It only affected a small segment of people: Reaction in Denver.