?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

Income Tax Cuts! WOW I'm sure glad we have GWB in the White House!

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

Income Tax Cuts! WOW I'm sure glad we have GWB in the White House!

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
mucha mosaic
This year, I paid the same money in federal taxes which I paid last year.
To the dollar.

Meanwhile, GWB paid $30,000 less than he paid last year.
That's probably rounded one way or the other.

Good to see that the tax cuts really are helping those who aren't making a quarter of a million dollars every year!
  • Another friend of mine noted that the child credits received last year need to be paid back this year. Since she's otherwise a fairly well-brainwashed conservative (she attends a religious school, but seems to be curable; a few of us are trying to broaden her horizons), this has seriously made her consider voting against Bush. Every little bit helps, especially when he does the own shooting of his foot. I knew all those Texas guns were good for a reason.
  • ::yawn::
    • Re-post; the prior 'huh?' said nothing of use.

      So in your view, it's reasonable that someone with $250,000+ in income, w/ 2 dependents (I assume the Bush twins are still claimed, I THINK they're not yet in the workforce) should be paying $30,000 less a year, while someone in the high end of the middle class is paying $0 less?
      Is that your honest opinion of fairness? I can only assume that's what ::yawn:: is intended to mean.

      Maybe I'm just approaching the question with a Marxist perspective: the whole 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' thing is awfully idealistic.
      ...but wasn't this country founded on idealism, on reflection?
      • I'm just tired, Colubra, of a lot of the gripping. Not just from you, but what's out there on the whole. I'm really frustrated by the huge blame-game which is being played, particularly when I don't see anything productive coming out of it. I'm also still shocked and rather frightened of the viseral hatred that's going around, most likely because it's an election year. Still, I'm frightened about what the Democrats are going to say and do if Kerry doesn't win.

        The question i see here is _why_ is Bush paying less this year. He's had the same job for the past 3 years, all at the same income. The same kids to write off as dependents. So what, in particular, has changed so drastically with his taxes that he is paying less. I'm just curious. It sounds like a big sum, and you can seethe about it all you want to, but I'm sure there's some sort of reason. The reason is either fair or unfair, but I'd still like to know the reason so that i can judge for myself, not look and see Colubra is having another fit over something about Bush today.

        ::yawn:: is just intended to mean: oh god, just more of all of this crap. That's all. No more and no less.

        if you are looking at the question with a Marxist perspective than I suppose we certainly don't look at things the same as I'm not someone who thinks Marx and his philosophies work applied to reality. I think being idealistic is a good thing, and I certainly hold several ideals no matter how pragmatic I _attempt_ to be. I try to be like Dr. Spock, but I suppose there's just too much of that human Captain Kirk in me. Or something.

        Marx dreamt of his own utopia, a word which is synonymous with dreamworld, never-never-land, promised land and fantasy. Marx could have done with a healthy dose of reality, and after the phenonmenal failure of Communism and the struggles of Socialism, I would think anyone who still believes in Marx could use the same.

        As to what this country was founded on? Well, I have heard a lot of things our country was founded on, but idealism actually isn't on the top of the list. As I recall, firth there was capitalism with all of the settlements sent here to gather natural resources, followed by the Pilgrims looking for religious freedom. About the time of the revolution it was about liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness, equality and independence. Later down the road, in the age of slavery, it was about compromise.

        Compromise is something I believe in strongly, and there's precious little of it to go around right now.
      • The question i see here is _why_ is Bush paying less this year. He's had the same job for the past 3 years, all at the same income. The same kids to write off as dependents. So what, in particular, has changed so drastically with his taxes that he is paying less. I'm just curious.
        Same question I have, really. He's paying 30K less out of 250K (plus whatever income he claims off 1099s, stocks, &c). Shouldn't I be paying a similar proportion less? that's the reason I look at this and go 'good chripes this really seems to favor the rich'.

        As to what this country was founded on?
        I'll quote a few gentlemen in reply:
        we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
        To me, that reads as idealism. ;)
        • I guess the question there is: how many stocks do you have, Colu? I mean, if you have a nice tidy little portfolio that you've kept very balanced then it might be the same. Perhaps you haven't gotten any dividends or otherwise.

          I can only imagine how much stock that Bush owns. It's not been the greatest year for the stock market, and who knows what companies are paying out in dividends. I assume, considering his background, that Bush's income doesn't solely come from his job as US President. So if the other areas of his income are significantly down than he'll be paying less this year.

          Which is a pretty reasonable thing. Other people might not have the same stock issues to worry about.

          I also quoted those same gentlemen, and while their values in founding the country might have been high, but I, personally, don't find my personal life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness to have been hampered lately.
          • I, personally, don't find my personal life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness to have been hampered lately.

            Then you are most likely white, straight, and were born in America to a middle-class or higher family.
            • Psychic

              Guilty on all charges. I hate myself for being white, straight, and from a wealthy family. I should be ashamed.
              • Re: Psychic

                knowing the author, I think the point gator74 intended was 'you're part of the people Bush identifies himself as, so it's no wonder your liberties aren't infringed on', not 'you should feel guilt for being a well-financed heterosexual white person'.

                I mean hell, I'm 3/4ths of a well-financed heterosexual white male, myself.
          • I hadn't considered the stocks picture- that does indeed make a lot of sense (though the stock I own paid dividends within the calendar year for the first time since I bought it). Does that change the fact that the tax cuts Bush pushed 'to help the American people' have benefited the richest 1% of the people, to the tune of 190 billion dollars? My memory's long enough that I can remember what that's called. That's 'voodoo economics', as GWB's own father termed them in '80, while seeking the Republican nomination.
            Still- there is a possible explanation for that lowering of his income taxes paid: but jeeeeeez, 30 million in stock dividends in 2002? That's 30 million shares, I'll call it conservatively, since dividends seem to run in the <$1 range, save for the minority-- and I'll assume GWB's portfolio isn't composed entirely of those stocks paying upwards of $20/share in 2002. It's also interesting that corporate tax burden's dropped (per black_reaver's comment below).
            As far as personal rights being hampered, I do find some evidence of that happening on a fairly broad scale all around me. Some examples follow.
            I find it troubling that every morning's commute is spiked with a news story about a woman being tried for murder because of actions she did that affected an unborn child- who has, under the law as it stands, no guaranteed rights. I'd call that a curtailing of freedom- and an attempt to build a troubling precedent. Do you wish to be viewed as a criminal for what you do with your body? Did you light up a smoke? Y'know, that'll damage your ability to bear children, can't have that.
            I also find it troubling that we're at war with pornography now, per Mr. Ashcroft. A war nobody seems to be asking for, and a war that has about as much hope as the war on drugs. It's quite possible that people might attempt to acquire pornography as part of their pursuit of happiness.
            I don't find my liberty to be hampered lately- but I am also not a US citizen being held in Guantanamo without a speedy trial, which is a right guaranteed in the Constitution's first 10 amendments. I don't have to have that happen to me to see it as an attempt to infringe on the right to liberty of a fellow citizen- and as possibly setting a precedent wherein people could be held in similar situations without recourse.
            And then there is one realm where I can certainly see my personal pursuit of happiness being set up for attack by the current administration. The president's constant harping on the necessity of an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit some citizens from sharing the same rights as the rest as a deliberate assault on the right to the pursuit of happiness of a sizeable percentage of the American populace: that is, marriage. While this is not a right that I might exercise at present, I have a good many friends who have. In my eyes, it's reprehensible to attempt to legislate against social equality on grounds that lack basis in Constitutional law. If childless marriage is to be forbidden, well, best keep all those people who are sterile from getting married. If it's a sin in the eyes of god that two men sleep together, well, the Supreme Court already said that it's unconstitutional to forbid them to do so. Same Supreme Court line-up that bluntly resolved the quandary of Florida's electoral mess, so they obviously do things right.
            This unprecedented action is definitely an attempt to hamper the pursuit of happiness of citizens of this nation- and therefore runs in direct opposition to the self-evident truths on which this country was founded.

            So yeah, I certainly see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness getting hampered lately. Not always my own, but the rule of law isn't something I feel I should consider simply from a personal standpoint; the benefits of the rule of law were intended by the architects of the Constitution to be available to every citizen of the United States, and should therefore be provided to every citizen of the United States who is within the realm of legal behavior.
            Bush seem to want that to be untrue.
            • 1) Tax Cuts: First of all, I'm not someone who just loathes people for being too rich. With the exception of Hilton sisters and a handful of heirs, most people work hard for what they earn. Gates, Allen, Buffet and others wouldn't be where they are today without being leaders and working hard. Being competitive, surely, and it's fair to bring that up, but I think that's part of how people get ahead. By being innovative.

              Second of all, before the tax cuts I felt, from looking at the numbers, that the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the US paid an unfair percentage of the total taxes.

              Third of all, I'm puzzled that, if the tax changes are only for the rich, why John Kerry has had to talk out of both sides of his mouth about keeping all of the tax cuts which have been a benefit to the middle class while ranting on about the unfair cuts for the rich, who should go back to their old taxes. Either the tax cuts are harmful to the middle class and unfair to them, or the tax cuts were very beneficial for them.

              Personally, I hope that as some corporate criminals continue to get convicted in court that the extremely negative view of "rich people" will began to change. I also hope that recent events will make more shareholders understand how they are responsible and powerful in terms of checking the companies that they invest in. The recent shareholder move against Michael Eisner of Disney is a good example of how more power can be held by the smaller people when they care to exert their will. Meanwhile, Martha Stewart and the bigwigs of Enron, Tyco and Worlcom continue to accrue jail time and massive fines for their greedy behavior. As they deserve.

              However, it's a fallacy to assume that as one party gets richer another group must get poorer. It's not as if there is a limited amount of pie to go around, the size of the pie has a way of growing and shrinking. Moreover, the drive in markets to produce more wealth is certainly not something which is entirely in the hands of the President of the US.

              2) Gay Marriage: You mentioned this one later in your post, but I'll bring it up next because it's also an important one to me.

              If there's one thing that deeply disturbs me about Bush, it's that he's a born-again Christian. I am strongly against his stance on amending the Constitution, and I hope that more turmoil and change continues to happen to support gay marriage. Still, even in liberal areas like Oregon, California and Washington, recent votes in the past on gay marriage rights proposals have been struck down by the majority of voters. Not politicians, but the actual voters in the states.

              Gay rights still has a long way to go, and it's difficult since homosexuals are a small percentage of the population. Not to mention that it's one of those issues like abortion that politicians never really want to see resolved, because such emotional and sensitive issues are part of what drive donations from the party affiliates.

              Still, I believe that there is no such thing as separate but equal, and I donate to gay rights causes and want to have the issue advanced. Unfortunately, gay marriage is not the only issue to consider when considering your vote. I wish to hear about why I should vote for Kerry rather than all of the reasons why Bush sucks. There are plenty of reasons to attack Bush, I hear them all of the time, everyday, thanks to the mostly liberal media. That's all well and good. But if you want to make a change don't try to convince me to vote for Kerry because Bush is soooooo evil, try to convince me why Kerry is any better.



            • 3) You make the story about the woman who refused to have a c-section because "she didn't want a scar" sound like a multiple event and common occurance rather than just one particular story.

              I'm sorry, but I'm a woman who thinks that woman should be tried for what she decided to do. She caused brain damage to children who were on the verge of being born because "she didn't want to get a scar." She was implicitely told the harm her choice was causing to her unborn children, and she choose to leave the hospital. Her choice caused brain damage. If you would like to differentiate on the rights of a baby based on... what? All of a few hours between being born, then you can draw a much clearer line than I can. Personally, I am against late term abortion. Moreover, this woman didn't want an abortion, she didn't want to get a scar from c-section!

              It's selfish. I find it deplorable. It's a controversial case, and a singular case. Lacey Peterson's unborn child is also one of Scott Peterson's murder victims. Is it, or isn't it? I doubt we're going to solve that issue today. However, I would appreciate it if you'd stop suggesting how I should feel about my rights as a woman. I'm not pro-life, and I am pro-choice, because I believe that most woman don't opt for abortion just as a form of birth control or without serious soul-searching. This woman, who was more concerned about her cosmetic appearance than the damage she was told was being caused to her children, is not someone I would consider a soul-searching individual.

              4) Pornagraphy: It'll be around no matter what. However, I have to applaud the recent crackdown on child pornagraphy. I think adults can handle their sexual material, and I agree that America's general prudeness is obnoxious. Still, I'd rather put my energy into fighting the areas where the fight against what is upsetting or lewd has gone entirely too far, such as into having such gems as "Catcher in the Rye" and "The Wizard of Oz" on the banned books list.

              4) Gauntamano Bay: Which I probably spelled wrong. Anyway. Another point at which I disagree with you. I understand that many of the individuals there are, if it's looked at realistically, political prisoners of war. They deserve trials. It's pathetic that it took so long just to let go some of the older men and younger children.

              Even if they are not being treated badly there (and according to the several teenagers released they are not, while according to a handful of others they are), their freedom is still being kept from them unfairly. They deserve trials. End of story.

              Tell me that Kerry has promised trials or otherwise spoken on the G. Bay issue, and outlined what he thinks is just and what he will do about the issue when he comes into office.

              In summary, things are certainly not perfect. The line on when a fetus becomes a living human being is still fuzzy. Is their care important while still in the womb, or are they pieces of meat and just a lump of cells until that magic moment they pop out from their mother's tummies?

              The rights for homosexuals to marry is still in limbo. However, we've come a long way from tying them all together like logs and setting them on fire. They're actually out of the closet enough to have hit sitcoms on their issues and politicians who proclaim their homosexuality. The fight for equal treatment continues for them, and I think there's been some significant progress. I'm glad that, at least, it's being debated about. Still, the denial of gay rights and in particular gay marriage is not a right that this particular president has taken or given. Democrats have had their share of time in office and haven't made their progress either. Indeed, I can imagine that you have to be upset with the Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Peloi, who, according to the Mayor of San Fransisco, put him under considerable fire and pressure for allowing homosexual couples to obtain marriage lisences.

              The Democratic party isn't behind homosexual issues either. I have to admit I'm not entirely sure why they deserve your vote considering all that they have failed to do for homosexual causes.

              • Oops. I meant I AGREE on the issue of G. Bay.

                Don't you dare tease me on any Freudian slips. Or the rest of my spelling.

                Have I mentioned I'm dyslexic, dammit?! Well, I'm dyslexic, Turner! So back off! Bitch! You meanie! You've made me cry, and it's just dyslexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxic.

                ::sniffle::

                Okay, so now that's out of the way.
              • *grin* Wouldn't tease you on that if it was your opinion- but thank you for correcting. Typos do happen. :)

                Thanks for the insight into where you're coming from: I do appreciate it, a great deal. Even when it seems like I am being a mocking jerk, I do it to call things into question, rather than to just overthrow what you value. Please remember that, if you feel attacked.
                In my view, certainty is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
              • Not to dredge this shit up again, but:
                Thought you'd appreciate knowing I am also fallible. I forgot to put my 401k withholding in-- and got my employer ID# wrong. So I suddenly went from owing a bit to receiving about twice as much back.
                Duhr.
        • Unfortunately, the founding fathers did not, in fact, mean 'all men'. There were several subsections of humanity that they believed were not equal. :/ It's a shaky foundation that's been shored up through many, many, many years of patch work. Unfortunately, there's still some more patching needed, as current events underscore for us quite dramatically.
      • I'm just tired, Colubra, of a lot of the gripping.

        I disagree. I think more people need to get a grip. I would prefer them to grip themselves (several times a day if necessary) rather than weapons, but really, people should get a grip.

        I'm also still shocked and rather frightened of the viseral hatred that's going around, most likely because it's an election year.

        Were you also shocked and frightened of the visceral hatred that the Republicans spewed about Clinton during his entire time in office? I mean, the aforementioned people-in-need-of-a-grip were openly calling Hillary a lesbian... like that's a bad thing or something. The no-grip crowd were accusing the First Couple of having murdered Vince Foster. That's vitriol. In comparison to that, being mad at Dubya for engineering tax cuts favoring the sinfully wealthy is exceptionally mild.

        Still, I'm frightened about what the Democrats are going to say and do if Kerry doesn't win.

        Ooh, scary Democrats! We might... we might... um... write a lot of blogs! And hold meetings! And possibly hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"! Scary bunch, those Democrats!
        • Now be nice... she is telling me what's bugging her. And I can respect that. I asked- she answered. And it's something I didn't know.

          Though yes, more people do need a grip. ;)
        • Gripping. Griping. I apologize for the extra p. Clearly I make myself impossible to understand. Let me clarify for the clever:

          Gripping good. Griping bad.

          Yes, I was shocked and frightened over the viseral hatred of what went on during the Clinton administration. From both sides - which I should have made clear before. I find Hannity and Anne Coulter just as viseral and damaging as I find Michael Moore and Al Franken.

          Who cares if Hillary is a lesbian, really? I think that's a pretty transparent rumor. My favorite political cartoon this year is one that shows Bush and Kerry on a wild west road dressed as gunslingers. As the two face off for a duel, squinting at each other in the spirit of competition, their hands hover abover their holsters which are loaded with .... buckets of mud.

          When Coulter says that all liberals should be shot or Franken says all Conservatives are big gat stupid liars - and then become the heros of both of their respective sides! - I feel that there's something wrong in way our media and political debates and dialogue operates. We've opened ourselves up to allowing all kinds of fallacies to enter into what's supposedly a real debate. Ad hominem attacks, belittling of the other sides arguments to make them sound weak, either/or thinking, dangerous generalizations, slippery slope thinking, and more.

          You are welcome to use the technique of belittling my statement and concern over the Democrats through ridicule, but I have a feeling that you're capable of a lot better than a classic fallacy. Perhaps the things said and attitudes taken on by the left are not scary to you, and you fully support and subscribe to them. Unfortunately, there are rash statements, exaggerations, lies, and unseemly behavior on the left just as much as there is on the right.

          Last Democratic demonstration I saw wasn't a peaceful group of people sitting around singing peace songs. It was a group who were burning American flags, holding up traffic and banging on the hoods of the cars people were driving while waving "Impeach Bush" and "No War for Oil" signs. If they got honked at, they gave the lovely middle finger salute and them swarmed the car screaming obsensities at the people inside who were just made the mistake of trying to drive through downtown on a day that the left had planned a march.

          These are not pleasent, innocent, polite, rational or empathic people. I detoured into a parking garage and was thankful that I hadn't had to drive any further. I was thankful because I was afraid.

          • And you are now making a simple mistake -- confusing rude louts with the entirety, or even a majority, of "the left." (Pray tell -- whose flags ought they have been burning to protest US policies? Haiti's? But I digress.) If I don't think, "Limbaugh is an opiate addict, Limbaugh is a Republican, therefore all Republicans are opiate addicts," kindly do everyone the simple favor of not confusing a bunch of (a) randomly angry young people, lightly stirred with (b) agents provocateurs, with "the left."
    • You know, that was just bloody rude.
      • it wasn't THAT rude, really.

        Oh if I'm going to express an opinion, I don't mind if people disagree. And if they disagree I'd love to know why they disagree. I'm good at being wrong. I have years of practice.
        Though ::yawn:: doesn't tell me much about the opposing viewpoint. ;)
        • Re: it wasn't THAT rude, really.

          True. Mostly I was objecting to the delivery of the disagreeing viewpoint. I thought it could have been said better....or at least not imply that you were boring enough to cause a yawn.

          Which, btw, you aren't. IMOSHO.
          • Re: it wasn't THAT rude, really.

            The way you're looking at me through those sexy librarian glasses of yours makes me shake in my boots. Mea culpa for my rudeness. Colbura and I have spun around on some political issues before (mostly in my journal), so I felt okay being a little catty with him. (He and I have at least a decade's history of being catty with each other too. We still like each other, so it's okay. For some of us, it's a form of love.)

            However, your sexy librarian college school look coming at me through the page - so forthright and in my face - makes me know that I owe an apology.

            I'm sorry. I'm very, terribly sorry.

            Now I will ::yawn:: and curl up to nap in Colu's lap. (Which is just a cover for trying to set his toenails on fire.)
  • yep. rounded down. it was 31k...
  • It's worse than that. Corporate taxe burden has dropped to less than 8% and the top 1% of the income scale got over 190 billion dollars in tax cuts.
    • Gee-Wah-Bee, Gee-Wah-Bee,
      riding through the glen
      Gee-Wah-Bee, Gee-Wah-Bee,
      with croneyish men
      Steals from the poor
      gives to the riiich
      stupid bitch--
  • ...my only consolation in all this is: hey, at least the press is trumpeting the fact that GWB is being a rich selfish fucker. Maybe he'll be guilted into putting that money into charities or something. More likely his re-election funds, but at least *it pisses people off*. Considering the apathy and stupidity levels among the populi lately, that's a kind of a good sign.
Powered by LiveJournal.com