|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
US Rep Tim Johnson To Vote For $100,000 Tax Cut For Millionaires? |
Current rating: 0 |
by NYTimes via ML
(No verified email address) |
04 May 2003
Modified: 07:53:50 PM |
It looks like Congressman Tim Johnson, always in the hip-pocket of House leader Dennis Hastert, will vote for an even bigger tax cut than the one he did as the War on Iraq started, taking the money from veteran's benefits (see: http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/11427/index.php). If Tim is willing to kick ex-servicemembers in the teeth for a smaller tax cut, is there any reason he would not vote for an even bigger tax cut than Bush has proposed?
It sure looks that way, with rich Republican campaign contributors expecting a pay-back for their support. According to the New York Times, the plan will put an greater burden on working families who make less than $50,000 a year, while doing far less than it could to assist a sputtering economy that will be the biggest issue in the 2004 campaign.
Will Johnson denounce this give-away or will he vote for it? The voters will be watching a man who has already renounced his promise to spend only a limited time in Washington, if elected to Congress. |
House G.O.P. Tax Cuts Outdo Bush Plan in Favoring Wealthy
by David Rosenbaum
WASHINGTON, May 2 — The tax-cut plan offered this week by Republican leaders in the House would be even more favorable to the wealthiest taxpayers than the larger plan proposed by President Bush, and those with incomes of less than $50,000 would have smaller tax reductions than under the Bush plan, a computer analysis showed today.
The analysis by the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution found, for example, that taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million would get an average tax cut this year of $105,636 under the plan outlined on Thursday by Representative Bill Thomas of California, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Under the Bush proposal, the average cut for these people would be $89,509.
By the same token, taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would get an average tax cut this year of $734 under the the Bush plan and $712 under the Thomas plan; those with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 would get an average cut of $482 under the Bush plan and $456 under the Thomas version. Similar disparities exist with the smaller tax cuts at lower income levels. Eighty-four percent of all taxpayers have incomes of less than $75,000.
The main difference between the two plans is that the president would eliminate the tax on most stock dividends but would not change capital gains taxes. The House plan would lower the tax on capital gains — now 18 percent or 20 percent in most cases — to 15 percent and tax income from dividends, now taxed at rates up to 38.5 percent, also at 15 percent.
Rich people, because they have more to invest, are the main beneficiaries of capital gains and dividends. But they have a larger proportion of total capital gains, which are profits from the sale of investments, than they do of dividends. So they benefit even more when the capital gains rate is reduced than they do from eliminating the tax on dividends.
Taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million would save an average of $42,800 this year from the Thomas approach of lowering the rate on capital gains and dividends. They would save an average of $26,800 from eliminating the tax on most dividends.
The rest of the tax savings this year would come mainly from provisions that would lower tax rates across the board. Other savings would come from an increase in the credit for children and a bonus for married couples. These provisions are the same in the Bush and Thomas plans as they apply to this year's taxes.
Mr. Thomas did not comment on the study. "We haven't had time to even think about this," said his spokeswoman, Christin Tinsworth.
Mr. Thomas and other Republicans are generally contemptuous of these kinds of studies, which are called distributional analyses. Republicans are not concerned when the most affluent people in the country get the bulk of tax cuts, because they pay the bulk of the taxes. The best way to improve the economy, in the Republican view, is to give money to the people who are most likely to invest it.
Another study released today showed that if special provisions called sunsets that Mr. Thomas put in his bill to keep the cost down are factored out, the total cost in lost revenue over 10 years would reach more than $1 trillion, far greater than the $550 billion allowed under the budget Congress approved last month and the $726 billion the president proposed. This study was done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal policy institute.
This study and the computer analysis of benefits at different income levels were conducted by Democratic analysts who are opposed to Republican tax-cut policies. But the findings were based on impartial data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation.
The sunsets are provisions that put popular tax cuts in place this year but make them expire at the end of 2005 to save money under the 10-year calculations. Mr. Thomas did this with the child credit, the marriage bonus and an expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket, all of which are popular because they benefit masses of middle-income taxpayers. Another tax break that would expire after 2005 would allow increased write-offs for small businesses.
Mr. Thomas left no doubt on Thursday when he outlined his plan to reporters that he expected Congress to make these provisions permanent before they expired. Altogether, he saved about $100 billion in projected lost revenue by sunsetting, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated.
Another provision that would expire in 2005 would extend more generous depreciation write-offs for large companies for their expenses on plants and equipment.
This was originally written to encourage investment during hard times for businesses, and it is not so clear whether Congress would be eager to extend it past 2005 if the economy improved. But if it was extended for the full 10 years covered by the legislation, it would cost another $400 billion in lost revenue, bringing the total cost of the package to more than $1 trillion, the center calculated.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
|
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/
|
Related stories on this site:
OUTRAGEOUS!--Who Gets What From House GOP Tax Cut Plan: Richest One-Tenth Of One Percent Of Population To Recieve Half Of Entire Tax Cut
|
Comments
|
That's Trickle Down Economics |
by Paul R.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
05 May 2003
|
Hey Tim, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's trickle down economics.
If the recent investment bank and profit reporting scandals are any indication, I'd say that freeing up the capital gains tax is just more incentive to lie and steal.
It's not a case of one bad apple. The whole fucking tree is rotten. |
|
Re: US Rep Tim Johnson To Vote For $100,000 Tax Cut For Millionaires? |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
06 May 2003
|
Dear Representative Johnson,
Thanks, I could use the relief.
Jack |
|
Even The Wealthy Say Tax Cut Plan Stinks: US Sage Attacks Executive Greed |
by Abigail Rayner
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 May 2003
|
WARREN BUFFETT, the US investor whose folksy style masks one of the shrewdest minds in corporate America, used the annual gathering of his Berkshire Hathaway vehicle to launch a fierce attack on US executive greed and President Bush’s planned tax cuts.
The shareholder meeting in Mr Buffett’s home town of Omaha, Nebraska, which attracts some 14,000 “Buffeteers”, is dubbed the “Woodstock for Capitalists” and is a fixture in the investment calendar. But this year’s gathering at times seemed more like an antiglobalisation rally.
The second richest man in the world, Mr Buffett, known as the “Sage of Omaha”, criticised plans for tax cuts that he said were designed to fleece the poor and reward the rich.
“I am not for the Bush plan. It screams of injustice. The main beneficiaries will be people like me and Charlie,” he said, referring to the Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman Charlie Munger. Mr Buffett said the tax plan was equivalent to “us giving a lesser percentage of our incomes to Washington than the people working in our shoe factories”.
He called on investors to rise up and revolt over colossal executive pay packages, saying in the past 20 years there had been “an enormous disparity in the rates of compensation between people at the top and people at the bottom, and a disconnect between people at the top and the shareowners who give them the money”.
“Arise shareholders,” he concluded, raising both palms skyward. Famed for his integrity and modest lifestyle, Mr Buffett paid himself $100,000 (£62,000) in salary and a further $300,000 in bonuses last year. He still lives in the grey stucco house he bought in 1956 for $31,500.
Berkshire Hathaway, the insurance-to-candy conglomerate that he chairs, would report record operating profits of $1.7 billion in the first quarter, benefiting from the strength of the insurance sector, he said. This was double the $818 million reported for the first three months of 2001.
Mr Buffett reported a “soft” performance of Berkshire’s consumer businesses, citing weak consumer spending power, which he claimed was not fairly reflected in the figures for US gross domestic product.
Mr Buffett said Berkshire had accumulated investible cash — or “float” — of $42.5 billion, up from about $37 billion a year ago. The conglomerate owns a diverse range of companies including Geico, the sixth largest auto insurer in the US, and General Re, a leading reinsurer.
Last Friday the company announced plans to buy McLane, a wholesale grocery distributor owned by Wal-Mart, for $1.5 billion.
When asked about the increase in dubious litigation in the US, Mr Buffett acknowledged the problem but seemed more concerned about the growing number of plaintiffs with a genuine grievance against a US corporation.
Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk |
|
Re: That's Trickle Down Economics |
by RDR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 May 2003
|
|
The problem with trickle down economics is that the rich get to store huge amounts of cash while they only let a trickle out. And when they do trickle a little out it trickles right past us to some exploitive factory in Mexico or China! |
|
Re: US Rep Tim Johnson To Vote For $100,000 Tax Cut For Millionaires? |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
10 May 2003
|
The top 10 %of all taxpayors account for 70 % of all taxes. Would you please define rich?
Thanks,
Jack |
|
Confirmed: Johnson Votes To Pad Wallets Of Rich |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
11 May 2003
|
Today's News-Gazette carried the news, discreetly buried on page B-5, that Johnson considers a tax cut for the rich to be far more important than the future care of veterans (see http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/11427/index.php) or stimulating the economy.
It is a well known fact that a tax cut targeted at the wealthy is far less effective at economic stimulus than cuts for lower income citizens. Our economy is not suffering from a lack of capital, which a tax cut for the rich might help, but from a lack of consumer spending. If a cut had been given to those who would likely spend it it, thereby providing immediate economic stimulus, it would have helped the economy.
Let's not forget who Tim Johnson really represents, the well-healed campaign contributors to the party of the rich, when the 2004 election comes up. With any luck, this will also be another shot in the foot for the Bush Regime, who should confront real issues in 2004 like jobs and rising inequality, instead of mostly fabricated issues meant to scare and distract the public like terrorism. |
|
How The Bush Campaign Will Run |
by via ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
11 May 2003
|
The story below indicates that if Willie was "slick" and Reagan was "teflon," then Dudya must be "oily." Bush goes to Omaha to tell workers how much he cares about jobs (not!) putting a bunch of people out of a day's pay.
And then their boss says, "They're just thrilled about the visit." It's hard to beleive the media actually thinks anyone can do anythingbut laugh about this -- it hardly seems credible to the average working Joe or Jane.
People, we have to get out and vote next year for people who reject these blatantly transparent con jobs on the majority of working people in this country. Like Johnson, the pResident is an inveterate liar and flim-flam artist. These people need to go before the last worker with a decent paycheck is thrown out of a job in the US.
Bush Visit Could Cost Some Omaha Workers a Day's Pay Stop on President's Tax Cut Tour Aimed at Neb. Senator Would Close Plant for Most of Two Shifts
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 11, 2003; Page A09
SANTA FE, N.M., May 10 -- About 340 workers at an Omaha plastics factory will lose pay or have to work next Saturday to make up for time lost during a visit by President Bush on Monday to promote his "jobs and growth plan," their boss said today.
Brad Crosby, president of Airlite Plastics Co., said about 170 of his workers will lose a full day's pay and another 170 will be docked for part of their pay for Monday unless they make up the time they spend attending Bush's speech.
Airlite, which will shut down for its first shift and part of the second shift to provide a photogenic backdrop for Bush's speech, will be the Monday afternoon stop on a two-day swing by Bush to pressure senators to support a large tax cut as the measure heads to the Senate floor. Bush will stand near a production line that makes polystyrene containers for shipping steak, vaccines and other goods.
"Since we have another shift that will have to work, it would be difficult to just give credit to the people who didn't work while they were attending the event," Crosby said in a telephone interview. "The really good option was just to offer the chance to work on Saturday. We feel that's a more fair approach."
Airlite's plans were reported in today's Omaha World-Herald. It was the second time this week that Bush's aggressive schedule of photo opportunities brought unwanted publicity. Several Democrats on Capitol Hill complained last week that the president's May Day speech on an aircraft carrier had been a political use of military assets.
Crosby said he spoke to several of the company's 510 hourly workers about the decision this morning, and they were not concerned. "They're just thrilled about the visit," he said.
A White House official declined comment except to say that Bush looks forward to talking to the people of Nebraska about his plan to "put money in their pockets."
Bush said in his prerecorded radio address today that his message in his travels next week "will be simple: The surest way to grow this economy and create jobs is to leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it."
In the Democratic response, Gov. James E. McGreevey (N.J.) called for a "return to the days of balanced budgets, responsible spending and investments -- investments in education, roads and small businesses."
The president and first lady Laura Bush are spending the weekend in Santa Fe at the home of Roland W. Betts, a New York developer who was a Bush fraternity brother at Yale University and his partner when he owned the Texas Rangers baseball team.
Bush golfed today at a course beneath the snow-capped Rockies, and joshed coyly with reporters when they lobbed their customary questions at the first tee.
"When I say I'm not answering questions, it means I'm not going to answer questions," Bush said. "But thank you for asking. I understand you're trying to do your job." Later, when a reporter tried to ask about golf and began, "Uhhhh," Bush scolded, "I don't think you heard me correctly."
Highlighting different parts of his economic proposal, Bush will speak to small-business owners near Albuquerque on Monday, then hold a roundtable with families at Airlite in Nebraska before heading to Indianapolis, where he will meet with seniors on Tuesday. Bush's aides describe Omaha as the most crucial stop, since Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has become their top lobbying target on the tax cut package.
Nelson said in an interview that he plans to push Bush to support a package that includes aid to states, including block grants for social services and a higher federal reimbursement rate for Medicaid.
Bush refers to Nelson as "Nellie," and the senator said he plans to try to renegotiate his nickname during the motorcade ride from the airport to Airlite. "I'd like something a little more macho," Nelson said. "Maybe 'Rocky' or 'Hunter.' "
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Washington.com
|
|
