But when we come to adopt such essentially flippant and ego-oriented attitudes

Yes, super Mom Jilluser is definitely flippant and ego-oriented.   Holly crap, where did you come up with that one?  Can you honestly say that you don't think that some people take advantage of life better than others?  If you can't, then you need to take a harder look around because JillUser obviously has a better grasp on what is going on than you do.

Super, if you think getting $100 compared to the over $28,000 that the wealthy receive is a benefit

I don't know where you got that $100 figure, but I can say that I got more than that.  I also got a $1000 child tax credit.  And, why do you think that the wealthy got more back?  It's because they *paid more in*.  I know that's a hard concept, but the more you pay in, the more you should get back.  And, if you think that the "putting more money in people's pockets will get them to spend more and therefore stimulate the economy" is "hogwash" you need to go back to economics 101.  The more money that is spent, the more money is in the hands of businesses which allows more people to be employed which creates more people buying stuff and paying taxes.  Pretty simple concept, actually.

The very people he is targeting are the megacorporations as they are not contributing to society in any way proportional to what they take from it.

The big businesses that keep the GDP healthy as well as millions employed are not contributing to society in any way proportional to what they take from it?

While the small business owner may benefit in some way from Bush's tax cut, they are not benefiting even remotely as much as big business. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the benefit they receive compareed to the truly rich is something like that $100 the average person gets compared to the $28,000 received by the moderately wealthy.

That's because the truly rich pay much more compared to the moderately wealthy! Even with the tax cuts, they're still paying much more.

Your third comment is another popular American notion:that those who succeed do so because they make the effort and those who don't get anywhere are in that position because they aren't trying hard enough. I think that idea ignores the fact that many people either are not oriented towards business success or do not posess the personality traits needed for such success.

People have the ability to adapt. Traits that lead to success are not divine.

I think the millions of people who sweat day in and out to support their families would take great offense at your insinuation that they are "making excuses for their situation". After all, there is infinitely more to life than money, and because a person has gained the ability, much to his/her credit, to succeed in moneymaking shouldn't cause them to lose compassion for their fellow men and women, neither should it lead to arrogance, because, let's face it, you don't have to be a genius to succeed in business(though I know a lot of business people like to think of themselves in such glowing terms, with what then do we describe the likes of Einstein, Picasso, or Mozart? Does anyone really believe that it takes THAT kind of other-worldly intelligence to succeed in business?).

So, these people are making enough to support their families and are happy? How are we being insensitive to them by supporting the tax cuts? If anything, it's those that want to tax corporations more, thereby causing them to layoff its employees, that are against them.

And the form of government we have should not inordinately favor people with business skills over those who don't have them. People of all interests should be able to make a good living, especially with the riches this country has to offer. There is no excuse for any other situation to exsist. Lastly, although in appearance the administration's attitude on environmental issues would seem not to have anything to do with taxes, I would say that what a person/group does concerning one issue is very likely connected in orientation and attitude to what they do concerning another. A person with an unhealthy attitude towards life as a whole is unlikely to be overly concerned with people as a whole, hence the Bush tax plan's preposterously unbalanced emphasis on the top percent or so of the economic strata. Can we really afford to delude ourselves into thinking that Bush or anyone else who shares his ideaology is really planning to help everyone out by literally throwing money at those who have too much? Lastly, in anticipation of any argument saying in effect "you have no right to tell people they have too much money, people should be able to make whatever they can,etc., I've got to say that I'm not trying to pontificate or tell people anything. I know that's none of my beeswax or wehatever. But as to wether there is a thing such as "too much" money, I think there is. Money becomes, in my opinion, too much when it ceases to serve the purpose of supporting a person(even if that means support in an extravagant way), and becomes something which is used to excercize power, whether or not that power is used to make more money. Because I think it's safe to assume that a person with hundreds of millions is not in any danger of losing their wealthy lifestyle in their lifetimes, unless they do something reckless. So what, then becomes the motivation? I would guess power.

The tax cut is not a freaking handout! The wealthy are not receiving money they didn't earn, they simply don't have to give as much of their money to the government. How is taking less of the money that the super wealthy have earned throwing money at them?

Also, if "too much" money is when money is used to "exercise power", then any organization, including churches, NOW, etc. should be taxed to oblivion, for they use money to "exercise power" and are therefore evil.

Holy cow Julian, talk about becoming one with the "dialect" of socialism.

Tax cuts harm the poor? What kind of nonsense is that? The money people earn is THEIR MONEY. It's not yours, it's not mine. It's the people's money that they've worked for.

And regardless of what you THINK, MOST people who make $200k or more in the United States are either self employed or small business owners. That is a statistical FACT.

So when you raise taxes on those who make more than $200k per year you are efectively raising taxes on small businesses.

If it weren't for the Bush tax cut, odds are you wouldn't have this website to post your points. I don't write code for JoeUser.com. Developers at Stardock do.

Boy Julian, you sure pegged me- greedy, ego-oriented, flippant, that's me all over

Thanks for coming to my defense KharmaGirl.

Julian, you say you don't mean to be preachy or criticize me as a person but you go right ahead and do exactly that. You don't know anything about me. Your conclusion about me would make anyone who knows me break out in hysterical laughter.

I said life is a game because in a game you make decisions every step of the way that determine the outcome. You make a big mistake, you better hope something lucky comes your way or the outcome is not going to be favorable. You never risk anything, you never win big. I say you play your cards right, treat others well and good things are bound to come your way.

I know businessmen who think of business as a game too. It requires strategy, posturing and sometimes luck. If they take a risk and win big, they should reap the reward. My conclusion about your use of words was only reiterated in your response.

Jill, I really didn't mean to offend you in any way, and I wasn't referring to you as flippant or ego oriented, I was just trying to describe the attitude taken to it's extreme, and I probably ended up misrepresenting what I was thinking. Although I don't know you personally, it's easy to conclude from your other posts that you are not such a person. If my comments were taken that way, I sincerely apologize. I realize I got pretty wordy, but what I basically believe is that business is not a force that should be allowed to have power over all other things in life;it has it's place like everything else, but we currently have a tremendous imbalance regarding it's position. I'm not advocating socialism, I just think that people oriented towards business, though those skills are just as valuable and important as any other, should not be the only people able to provide well for themselves and their families. The world is great because people have all sorts of different abilities and inclinations, some which produce a lot of money, some which don't, but it doesn't make the latter less valuable. As for what Brad said, I do think that SOME of the ideas in socialism are noteworthy, though I would agree with most people that it turned out in practice to be a disaster. But I think that capitalism, which is a more significant force in our current situation than the Democracy we all rave about, is not a good system. KarmaGirl, none of this strikes me as being particularly difficult to understand, and I have a decent appreciation for the system and how it works.I think the problem I have is really with the system itself. Just because THIS is the way things work now, doesn't mean it's the best way or that it is the way it always will be. As we continue to evolve out of our more aggresive tendencies and lose the necessity to power-seek we will remember that people are people and power gives a person the responsibility to aid those less fortunate. All major spiritual traditions put emphasis on balance and recognition of what we have in common. I think any system of government should be based on principles like these and not such sentiments as "the business of America is business". (By these comments I'm just idealizing and in no way suggesting that anyone on this message board is not spiritually inclined or does not do anything to help others. I'm sure some of you do more in that direction than I do. I have a tendency to throw ideas around and I really don't mean them to be taken more seriously than to create a lively discussion on this board. Again, if I let the fact that I was moody today let me take it out on people here, I'm wrong and I apologize, and I will try not to structure my thoughts that way again.

You don't like capitalism. Which path would you suggest? Which parts of socialism do you think work best to make for a good society that we aren't already making use of?

Ultimately for standards of living to go up, people have to make new things. And while they make new things, they need to be able to hire more people to do it. And when they hire more peopel to make those things, they pay them money in which they can purchase things other people are making.

If you remove the incentive for people to start and run businesses, then new things don't get made as quickly, if at all. Standards of living go down.

We saw this in the Soviet Union and we see it to a lesser extent in Europe. The more you tax society, you more the mean standard of living of that society decreases.  The difference though is that those who fail, REALLY fail in a capitalistic society whereas those who fail in a more socialistic society tend not to fail so badly.

The only safety net that I ask for from the government is to ensure that those who fail do not starve and have some place of basic shelter.  That's pretty much it though.  And we already do far more than that today.

Getting back to the argument at hand -- Kerry's tax proposal WILL (not maybe, WILL) cost jobs if it were enacted. The only time it makes sense to raise taxes is when you essentially have full employment and you need to balance the budget -- and even then only if you've trimmed the fat out of the budget.  Right now we don't have full employment. We need those small businesses to do what they do best -- create jobs. Take away money from them and you won't see as many jobs created.

Thanks for the correction. Looks like US tax laws are very different to European tax laws. I knew they were different but did not realise this fundamental issue despite reading your comments on LLC, S and C corporations. I had assumed that the owner's taxes were taxed at the company rate not the personal rate. Therefore I had assummed Kerry's tax change would not affect them.

Here personal tax and company tax are completely separate. As a small business owner I am encouraged to invest in my business as oppossed to take money out of it. Indeed the first 10k of business profit are tax free, re-investment in R&D is tax free (up to a limit), share incentive schemes are tax free (shares are locked for 5 years though) and corporation tax is under half the rate of personal tax. Everyone from businessmen to plumbers are encouraged to form small companies for tax reasons and, once they do that, they are then encouraged to expand those companies with tax incentives.

Paul.

Brad, I don't share the idea that having more products to buy makes the standard of living any better. We do need good homes, cars, food(and software!) but I think there is just so much junk out there that no one could possibly need that the over capatilization of our world has become surreal. I am also dubious that Kerry's plan WILL hurt the job market. In the past year I've watched(on the news) and read(in newsmagaszines and journals) dozens of this nations finest economists, probably the people in this country who have the best and most complete grasp of how the economy works, come out against Bush's economic policy. Since these people hail from such institutions as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Columbia, I feel there must be something to this. I have never been very politically inclined, but having observed what has been going on in politics for the past ten or so years, from a detached and logical standpoint, I think the overwhelming evidence is that the Republican party as it exists today does not have the best interests of the country in mind. I do find it very interesting that people are so sharply divided on these issues and passionately defend their positions, often very eloquently. I think that's one of the great things about Democracy. But has anybody noticed the attempt to erode many of the rights the constitution gives us? Who is the leader in this assault? The Republicans. KarmaGirl, as for where I got that $100 figure, that is the average amount the average person got from the Bush "tax cut". It has been mentioned on CNN at least 40 times and written in various newsmagazines. I particularly reccomend Newsweek's excellent breakdown of the distribution of the tax cut. As you mention, though, you run an L.L.C., which put you in a better position to benefit from the tax cut. Many in this country were not as fortunate.

As you mention, though, you run an L.L.C., which put you in a better position to benefit from the tax cut. Many in this country were not as fortunate.

My point exactly.  Thank you for proving why the Bush tax cut is good. I got back more in taxes with my LLC so that I can grow my business.  I am using the return to pay off money I invested personally in equipment.  Otherwise, I would be in more debt just establishing my business and probably wouldn't have a lot of incentive to keep at it. 

Brad, I don't share the idea that having more products to buy makes the standard of living any better

He says as he writes his comment on a personal computer on the Internet. I consider being able to use a computer and converse with people all over the world instantly to be an improvement over when I was a kid to my standard of living. I consider living in an air conditioned home to be pretty nifty as well. I am enjoying playing World of Warcraft. I enjoy being able to spend lots of time with my kids because where I work has very flexible hours. And all of these things have one thing in common - capitalism. People creating products and services that benefit others because doing so helps themselves. It is a system in which people are rewarded for creating things that other people desire. And it works pretty well. By contrast, if you raise our taxes, that's less money we have to create things. Buying things can help the economy but ultimately creating things is what generates wealth and prosperity.

I I agree with both of you in some ways. I definitely appreciate the efforts and needs of the small businessperson. To me, small business is the best kind of business-people who use their skills, knowledge, and drive to create something for themselves and their families, and provide the invaluable service to the country of providing jobs. I guess I'd have to say that unless Kerry took into account the needs of small business owners, his plan wouldn't be a very good one. But there is such a vast difference between the kind of money that small business owners make and that made by megacorporations. It's the power they have that really worries me. Don't either of you think there would be a way to retain the benefit to small business owners without allowing huge corporations to continue to increase their power by reaping the benefits from a tax cut they just don't need?
I just finished watching Lou Dobbs and he had on an economist who wrote an article in Harper's this month. Dobbs reccomended the article and it's about this economist's view that globalization is dying. He asserts that globalization and modern capitalism "throw ethics out the window". I also learned that new predictions show that medicare will be broke in fifteen years-that's seven years sooner than was predicted just last year. The report lays the blame on the Bush drug plan, while the administration wants to blame it on rising healthcare costs-absurd when you consider how health care costs would have to change to reflect a seven-year difference in a prediction that was last made one year ago.

I may have missed something here, and being from the UK, I don’t fully understand the American taxation system, but could it be that one might change the status of one's company in order to benefit tax wise?

What I am getting at is that companies might be staying registered as a 'LLC' in order to benefit from current personal tax options, when drawing personal salaries. Perhaps it is actually a loophole in the present system, which allows people running small businesses to draw such tidy sums, at low taxation rates.

Also, KhamaGirl, you say that you are using said tax benefits to recoup personal investment. Would it have not been better to declare said investment as a capital investment loan to your company, and pay yourself expenses / repayments? That would be the tax-legal way of doing it here I think.

Is it that more money NEEDS to be paid in tax, to cover things like schools, libraries, police, ambulance, hospitals etc? Some times, people have to just come to terms with the fact that there may not be enough money in the pot.

Anyway, I thought some people might find this interesting as a side issue. This is basically how we pay PERSONAL tax in the UK.

----- Earnings up to £4,615 are Tax-exempt
----- First £1,960 10%
----- Next £28,540 22%
----- Over £30,500 40%

Most companies basically pay around 10% on profits and have many complicated rules and regulations. Directors / shareholders can then draw tax efficient dividends on those profits.

Plus, we have value added tax on almost all purchases, which is 17.5% - (which VAT registered companies can claim back on their returns).

Petrol (thats gasoline to you folks!) is currently about £3.74 per gallon... At today’s exchange rate, that is about $6.84 per gallon. Most of which is tax.

Here in England (and many other parts of Europe), as I’m sure most of you are aware, we get medical and dental cover provided by our government. Its by no means perfect, but millions do come away alive, healthy and thankful.

Sam, your taxes and ours are not the same.  I'm not sure you are completely understanding the LLC (limited liability company). It's really more of a way of organizing the business that a "tax" savings.  My "personal" investment is out of pocket no matter what way you look at it.  I can't loan something to myself   Many businesses are LLCs.  If you are a sole proprietor, there is no reason to pay to be a corporation.  S-Corporations are taxed in a very similar manor,  however, C-corps are not.  C-corps are the bigger corps that have stocks and stuff like that.  They get taxed more.  Also, depending on the state, there are different taxes.  A corporation in Michigan that makes more than $250,000 gets smacked with a single business tax (which really hurts).  Business owners of S-corps get taxed on income for the business and again on the salary on a personal level.  So, yes, it is beneficial to only pay taxes as an income once versus being taxed twice.

BTW, "federal" school funding isn't much.  States dish out school funding.  Most of Michigan's school funding comes from the Lotto and sales tax.  Very little of it comes from property taxes (unless you have a millage for your particular school). 

I think I rather pay for healthcare than to pay $6.84 per gallon for gas.  at that rate, I would be spending over $125 a *week* just to get back and forth to work.  Paying for my own healthcare insurance would be much cheaper than that.

Sam, in this country, Republicans, rather than use taxpayer dollars to fund valuable social programs(as you do in Europe and most humane and sensible countries also do), prefer to funnel this money to the wealthiest people in this country, in the name of "smaller government". The reason they want a smaller government is so there is less regulation on business, and large corporations can continue to have their cake and eat it-along with everyone else's. If you believe that people, especially those with millions of dollars, should contribute in any way to those less fortunate, they call you a "tax and spend liberal". The reason you see our current administration treating the world with such disrespect-pulling out of the Kyoto treaty, basically running roughshod over world opinion, etc., is that they wish to isolate us from the rest of the world so they can continue with their Frankensteinish plan of turning the United States, once a sensible nation and a friend to Britain and all of Europe, into this egomaniacal bloated brat of a superpower you see thrust upon you and the rest of the world.
This may sound "unpatriotic", but to me it is no freind of his country who watches it become swamped in hypocrisy and doesn't at least say: this is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned, that we fought a long and costly war with your country to create.We are the last major industrial country without a real healthcare plan, and there are scores of other areas where our politicians also show disregard for the people they are supposedly representing. But if you say that you're for solid social programs, right-wingers will call you a socialist. You don't have to be a socialist to give a damn about other people, you just have to be in touch with your humanity. Believe, me, Sam, there are many in this country who wish we had responsible government as in Europe, and to show our responibility to the world by joining it-but we find our voices drowned out by the self-interested and the unnattentive.

Julian, why don't you move to Europe? There are plenty here that think we have a responsible government. Plenty of people that think that social programs are needed but not in their current form. Plenty of Republicans that believe that people can take better care of themselves than the government can but that the government is still needed to oversee things. Julian, you again try to make it sound as if our government is giving money to the wealthy. Do you know how much the wealthy pay? I would personally get miffed if I paid that much and was told I wasn't doing my fair share. You mention the founding fathers. They certainly didn't envision us being taxed into oblivion.

What do you consider a "real healthcare plan"?