How some of the top 1% are spending their tax-cut

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Episode 103 Summary:

Ava has a taste for the finer things in life. Only the best of the best will do for her Arabian Night Sweet 16.

The perfect party begins with the perfect venue. For Ava, this is the Four Seasons Hotel. Her mother doesn't agree with all of Ava's lavish plans. Ava's dad proves easier to persuade. He can't say no to his daughter.

Next, Ava must choose four members of the Loyola polo team to carry her during her grand entrance. She has three requirements--the boys must be cute, sexy and have good bodies. The candidates take off their shirts and practice lifting Ava before she chooses.

A party isn't complete without presents. Ava's father takes her to test drive different cars. Although "red is the closest color to pink" in the lot, Ava chooses a black Range Rover. Her dad is hesitant about her decision. He feels the car is too big for her to handle. "I will never settle for anything less than a Range Rover," Ava says.

Ava's mom takes her dress shopping in Paris. The search is frustrating because several stores are closed during August. Ava and her mother disagree over dress choices. Her mother won't buy a plain black dress and suggests a $2,550 red-orange dress instead. Ava hates the color, calling it "too crayon." Ava falls in love with a low-cut red dress, but her mother disapproves. She reminds her daughter that she is "still a young girl." Ava becomes frustrated and wishes she had gone shopping on her own.

After being disappointed in Paris, Ava decides to have two dresses custom made. She describes her ideal gown: beige, so it appears she is "wearing nothing but rhinestones." Her mother feels the dress is inappropriate for her age. Ava argues that a custom-made dress should look exactly how she wants. She calls her father for support. When she asks if he has bought her car yet, he gets upset. "If you stop whining, I'll get it for you," he shouts.

Later, Ava plans to go to Santa Barbara with her cousin. She tells her mom she is going to grab some food and sneaks off to State Street. Her mother is furious when she discovers the truth. When Ava tries to make another purchase, she learns her mom has canceled her credit card. She calls her dad to complain and stays at his house to avoid her mom.

Ava's parents take her to dinner at Dolce for her birthday. They tell her that she is not getting a car. Ava cries at the table and feels her day is ruined. Her parents remain firm, saying it is time for them to set limits. Ava soon reconciles with her mom and moves back home.

On the day of her party, Ava's parents surprise her with a white Road Ranger. The only condition--she must learn to respect them. The night only gets better, as Ava is carried into the hall to a standing ovation from her loved ones. After her entrance, she changes into a red gown and enjoys her "magical" night. She thanks her parents and calls the experience "a major transition from childhood to adulthood."

http://www.mtv.com/onair/dyn/sweet_16/epis...episodeID=86152

Meanwhile, amongst the other 99%:

Veterans would also feel the effect of Bush's budget. The document calls for vets to pay an annual $250 fee to qualify for VA health care. Those same vets would also pay more for their prescriptions, with the co-pay more than doubling to $15.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/211168_budget08.html

Thanks for your service. Here's your bill.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nice try, (expletive deleted ). Why the Class War fare bit ? First of all, you paint a false and misleading picture. Not only does that $ not belong to the Gov't, but the premise you put forth is that the rich wouldn't be doing the things you mention in this little scenario anyway were it not for the tax cut. 'Tis nothing but a cheap shot.

Also, Vets are getting MORE , not lesss $ in the Budget, so you can stop the lying here and now.

with the co-pay more than doubling to $15.

Horrors!! $15 for drugs? Say it ain't so ! Please.

[Auburn85 432]

Hello, yeah, me over here, .. We got a tax break also.

We spent the $400 child tax break on keeping us afloat. Things were getting extrememly tight before the break came and the break saved us.

Funny how the little man is never mentioned in the tax break, just the top 1%, cause they're the end all be all

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Nice try, (expletive deleted ). Why the Class War fare bit ?  First of all,  you paint a false and misleading picture. Not only does that $ not belong to the Gov't, but the premise you put forth is that the rich wouldn't be doing the things you mention in this little scenario anyway were it not for the tax cut.  'Tis nothing but a cheap shot. 

Also, Vets are getting MORE , not lesss $ in the Budget, so you can stop the lying  here and now.

with the co-pay more than doubling to $15.

Horrors!! $15 for drugs? Say it ain't so ! Please.

145648[/snapback]

Actually, that is not my premise. You're right, many rich people would still be engaging in opulent indulgences without the tax cut. Which points out why they didn't need it in the first place.

In a democracy the Government is us. You're right again, that money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to our lenders. Each American owes about $36,000 now to pay of "government" loans. Think of it as birth tax, which unlike inheritance taxes, which only about 2-5% owe, everybody owes.

Bush gutted the surplus because he said a surplus showed people were paying too much. Extend that logic and it means for over 30 years of deficits people were paying too little. When you owe 7 trillion dollars and finally finish a couple of years in the black, your not flush with funds. You guys don't seem to realize the budget is dealing with real money.

Our choices reflect our priorities. The bulk of the tax cut in dollar terms went to the top 1%. That revenue is now not in the budget. Other things are sacrificed as a result. The $15 copay is not the big deal, IMO. Having to pay $250 just to qualify for your benefit as a veteran after you serve your country, is.

Republicans engage in class warfare and then call others on it just for pointing it out. (Expletive deleted) you.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Hello, yeah, me over here, .. We got a tax break also.

We spent the $400 child tax break on keeping us afloat. Things were getting extrememly tight before the break came and the break saved us.

Funny how the little man is never mentioned in the tax break, just the top 1%, cause they're the end all be all

145672[/snapback]

Hey, you over there. I'm glad you got your tax cut. Some people did need it. That's why I didn't mention it. I only want to revoke the cut on the top 1-2%

[Auburn85 432]

You know, they can send that tax break back(if they didn't need it)

But why would people send money back to save programs of the most vulnerable when they can get that new hummer

[BamaGrad03 0]

Maybe we should start a thread showing how the bottom 99% of us "spend" ALL the tax money that the top 1% has to pay.

Without the guy who makes 1 mill a year paying 400k in taxes, that Veteran's health insurance copay would cost 100 dollars. And Alabama might still have dirt roads.

[Auburn85 432]

Good point. And I don't think the middle to poor man is the one creating the majority of the jobs.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Bush gutted the surplus..... 

Blah blah blah. The surplus NEVER EXISTED! It was nothing but a sunny projection of things that were NEVER going to be, as evidenced by the DOT COM bubble bursting. I really wish the folks on the Left would get over their delusional Clinton orgasm and come back to reality.

Most of the tax cuts went to those who PAID the most. If you don't pay taxes, how can you expect to get a CUT ??? Figure that one out , [expletive deleted] head.

[Auburn85 432]

Clinton could have spent some of that SURPLUS on defense. Something he reduced

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bush gutted the surplus..... 

Blah blah blah. The surplus NEVER EXISTED! It was nothing but a sunny projection of things that were NEVER going to be, as evidenced by the DOT COM bubble bursting. I really wish the folks on the Left would get over their delusional Clinton orgasm and come back to reality.

Most of the tax cuts went to those who PAID the most. If you don't pay taxes, how can you expect to get a CUT ??? Figure that one out , [expletive deleted] head.

145754[/snapback]

Okay, you may actually be insane. There was a small surplus in 1999 and an 86 billion dollar one in 2000. Here are the actual numbers from the CBO, not that you will be deterred by facts:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Larger ones were projected for the coming years, before Bush's tax cuts. You may recall, then again you probably don't, that Bush's argument for the tax cuts was that the "surplus was the people's money" and that we shouldn't have one. (despite the fact that it would take decades of surpluses to pay off our debts to ...gasp... China and other countries.)

[Auburn85 432]

Why didn't he spend the surplus on education. Education never seems to have enough money.

Bush spends more on education than Clinton did.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Why didn't he spend the surplus on education. Education never seems to have enough money.

Bush spends more on education than Clinton did.

145759[/snapback]

For his first four years, Bush spent more on almost everything than Clinton did. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush. From the conservative Cato Institute:

The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton.

by Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

July 28, 2003

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a fiscal policy researcher at the Cato Institute.

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free-spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.

The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of the lowest is supposed to be comforting.

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.

This article originally appeared in NRO on July 28, 2003.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030728.html

[Auburn85 432]

ok, do you feel that we are taxed too much, too little, or about right

[AURaptor 1,126]

Okay, you may actually be insane. There was a small surplus in 1999 and an 86 billion dollar one in 2000. Here are the actual numbers from the CBO, not that you will be deterred by facts:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Larger ones were projected for the coming years, before Bush's tax cuts. You may recall, then again you probably don't, that Bush's argument for the tax cuts was that the "surplus was the people's money" and that we shouldn't have one. (despite the fact that it would take decades of surpluses to pay off our debts to ...gasp... China and other countries.)

There never was any ACTUAL surplus. Talking about this any further is pointless. Bush's tax cuts have actually RAISED the amount of $$ going into the Treasury, not decreased it. Sorry charlie, you lose.

[Auburn85 432]

I think we pay too much tax as it is. Had we stayed on the same tax level as Clinton, somewhere in the near future we would see our taxes going up, meaning more of our check is taken away.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Okay, you may actually be insane. There was a small surplus in 1999 and an 86 billion dollar one in 2000. Here are the actual numbers from the CBO, not that you will be deterred by facts:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Larger ones were projected for the coming years, before Bush's tax cuts. You may recall, then again you probably don't, that Bush's argument for the tax cuts was that the "surplus was the people's money" and that we shouldn't have one. (despite the fact that it would take decades of surpluses to pay off our debts to ...gasp... China and other countries.)

There never was any ACTUAL surplus. Talking about this any further is pointless. Bush's tax cuts have actually RAISED the amount of $$ going into the Treasury, not decreased it. Sorry charlie, you lose.

145775[/snapback]

Scratch the "may", you've lost touch with reality.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah, TexasTiger, I know what it SAYS on the CBO report. I'm just not buying it. Call me crazy.

The Gov't is far too large, but both parties are to blame. If the Dems could find a Conservative like Zell Miller or Sam Nunn, I'd be willing to consider voting for them. Sadly, we'll never see the likes of those 2 in the Democratic party any time soon.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bush's tax cuts have actually RAISED the amount of $$ going into the Treasury, not decreased it. Sorry charlie, you lose.

145775[/snapback]

Tax Revenue Below 2000's Despite Growth in Profits

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - Even after a year of solid economic growth and booming corporate profits, federal income tax revenues were lower in the fiscal year that just ended than in the year before President Bush took office, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In a sign that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have had a bigger impact on the federal deficit than administration officials have often suggested, personal and corporate income taxes are both lower than they were in 2000 even though personal income and corporate profits are both substantially higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/08deficit.html?ex=1108184400&en=a65b6f362376cc77&ei=5070

You're big on just declaring your opponent the "loser". You're living in you own reality. Any facts that contradict your position you simply disregard.

[Auburn85 432]

OK, had the tax cut not be given, we would have faced a recession anyway, did the tax cut take some of the burden of the recession? Or would it had been better not to give the tax break and let the recession take it's toll?

And I think AURaptor meant that the tax cuts resulted in gains for the treasury not losses. And I mean this to be, had the tax cuts been given and it didn't stimulate the amount going into the treasury.

Because had the recession happened without a tax cut, the amount going into the treasury would have probably gone down.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

OK, had the tax cut not be given, we would have faced a recession anyway, did the tax cut take some of the burden of the recession? Or would it had been better not to give the tax break and let the recession take it's toll?

And I think AURaptor meant that the tax cuts resulted in gains for the treasury not losses. And I mean this to be, had the tax cuts been given and it didn't stimulate the amount going into the treasury.

Because had the recession happened without a tax cut, the amount going into the treasury would have probably gone down.

145875[/snapback]

I'm sure it was a help to the folks who needed it the most, although some state governments have indicated that less money from the federal government has led to higher state and local taxes in some locales.

[Auburn85 432]

I'm sure it was a help to the folks who needed it the most, although some state governments have indicated that less money from the federal government has led to higher state and local taxes in some locales.

145879[/snapback]

Really? I didn't notice. As I always point out a couple of years ago the sales tax in Montgomery was 8%. Now it's 10%.

But in Montgomery, it didn't deterr Bobby Bright from bulding a $26 million baseball stadium. To help pay for this he has raised the lodging tax to 10%.

And don't even get started on how accountable the Alabama government is?

I feel this has something to do with it in other states. Not all, but some.

Look at California, one of the highest taxed states, and they are in debt up to their eyeballs.

Only a small portion of the defits were caused by the federal government. The rest has to do with poor mismanagement.

And please answer this for me. If the economy is struggling and people are obviosly not able to afford stuff that they could in previous years, how is raising taxes the answer? This means that more money from people who are struggling because of the economy is going to struggle more. How does this solve the problem?

Hell, eventually the sales tax may be 15% in Montgomery, but sooner or later they will run out of funds from that and they would have to contumplate raisng more taxes.

Like here in Alabama, had we voted for the $1.2 billion increase, the government down the road would fall into a deficit and would have to raise taxes again.

If anything the decrease of fed taxes has stopped additional fed taxes from being taken out of our checks in the future. Because the next president may raise fed taxes and we are back to pre Bush standards. Bush helped control the tax burden if only for a short time.

Because as of now, over half of our annual salary goes to some sort of taxation.

Eventually it will be 60% f our annual salary and then higher. Taxation needs to be capped.!

[BamaGrad03 0]

The underlying problem here is twofold...

1.) Government HAS to decide how to do things without just "taxing more". You can scream you have accountability all day long...but when American's pay over 50% of their income in taxes...something has to stop. At what point do we say: "we can't tax em anymore"? You can only tax 100% of my income...THEN what are you going to do?

2.) Texas, your argument that we could have given that money to someone who needed it more instead of the top 1%, is a incorrect one in my opinion. Yes, I agree that money is better spent on helping poor people eat...than buying your 16 year old a Range Rover. But this is America. Just because I have less then you, doesnt ENTITLE me to some of yours to balance out the scales. It is sad that people go hungry in america while others live a lavish lifestyle...but we are not communists...so thats how it goes. I work hard for my money, and I have to give a lot of it away. And when I see people taking MY money and buying Filet Mignon and Ribeye's with it on food stamps...it pisses me off. When I see people take MY money and buy gas to put in their Caddy...it pisses me off.

Texas, you and I arent that different. I see your underlying concern (genuine concern) for those less fortunate. But there is no way to know which guy is willing to work for it, and which guy wants to live off of others. So rich people giving the govt 40 cents of every dollar they earn will have to be enough.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The underlying problem here is twofold...

1.) Government HAS to decide how to do things without just "taxing more". You can scream you have accountability all day long...but when American's pay over 50% of their income in taxes...something has to stop. At what point do we say: "we can't tax em anymore"? You can only tax 100% of my income...THEN what are you going to do?

2.) Texas, your argument that we could have given that money to someone who needed it more instead of the top 1%, is a incorrect one in my opinion. Yes, I agree that money is better spent on helping poor people eat...than buying your 16 year old a Range Rover. But this is America. Just because I have less then you, doesnt ENTITLE me to some of yours to balance out the scales. It is sad that people go hungry in america while others live a lavish lifestyle...but we are not communists...so thats how it goes. I work hard for my money, and I have to give a lot of it away. And when I see people taking MY money and buying Filet Mignon and Ribeye's with it on food stamps...it pisses me off. When I see people take MY money and buy gas to put in their Caddy...it pisses me off.

Texas, you and I arent that different. I see your underlying concern (genuine concern) for those less fortunate. But there is no way to know which guy is willing to work for it, and which guy wants to live off of others. So rich people giving the govt 40 cents of every dollar they earn will have to be enough.

146036[/snapback]

You may recall several months ago you were throwing around the percentages that we are taxed and I walked you through what that person would actually pay and it was quite different. Under Clinton, millionaires had a 39.6% top rate for what they recieved over a million dollars, ( It's lower now.) but even that didn't mean they paid 40 cents on the dollar. They paid much less. You may recall a post showing Theresa Heinz Kerry supposedly paid about 12.5% in recent year. I don't know if that's true, but it is no doubt closer to the truth than 40%. If 50% of your money is going to taxes, get a new financial advisor and accountant. You're being screwed by someone other than the government.

You focus on the foodstamps and the mythical welfare cadillac as the norm for those that are on government assistance. It made for a great country song, but while there are no doubt abuses, those are not the typical poor. And there is also the working poor. This is not, by and large, where the money goes. Study the budget. But that was not point anyway.

We are not solvent. We are not paying our bills. We pay a big chunk of budget in the form of interest on the debt. You made a good point earlier, whether you meant it or not, and although exaggerated, about what the state of things would be without the rich paying taxes. But in this particular post you assume it is all about redistributing the wealth. It is about paying for the things we need as a country-- a well equipped army, safer ports, safer bridges and tunnels. better border security, roads to support commerce, schools to keep our workforce competitive. The welfare you focus on is just a small part of the puzzle. I gave an example about how we treat the veterans who are willing to put their lives on the line for us. Study the concept of opportunity cost-- for any expenditure of a resource, you give up other opportunities to do other things. Accordingly, you decide what you value the most and set your priorities.

I don't like paying taxes. When I look at what I pay it seems like way too much. But I don't really suffer from it. I don't drive a Range Rover, but I live better than the vast majority of the people on this planet and you do, too. Our leaders need to formulate a plan to pay for what we as a democratic people think we should have. And then they need to sell us on it. If they can sell us on a flat tax that works, fine. I don't favor it, but at least get a plan that works and convince people it is the way to go. That's the job of a leader.

[Auburn85 432]

Did anyone hear that a proposal may be made for us the taxpayer, to help out in possibly funding a new dome stadium in Birmingham.

One politician went as far as this could help Birmingham get the Summer Olympics to come

I feel the Alabama government has enogh revenue.What really strange about the taxes are scattered out is the problem. We have probably, the lowest property taxes in the country, BUT we pay a 4% sales tax on necessities: food ,clothing, ect.

We are one of the poorest states, yet our Supreme Court Judges have some of the highest salaries in the country.

Did anyone here about the Alabama's taxpayer's money going to the purchase of leather coasters for our legislature? The cost was around $12,000