Bush Is Said to Weigh Changes to the Tax Code (Rich pay near 0 on Inv Inc

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/business/14savings.html

Bush Is Said to Weigh Changes to the Tax Code
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS


WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - Senior Bush administration officials said Thursday that they were considering plans to simplify the tax code and to revive earlier ideas for savings plans that would allow people to exclude almost all their investment income from taxes.

<snip>Another theme that Mr. Bush has stressed is the desire to encourage an "ownership society," in part by reducing taxes as much as possible on investment income.

Administration officials have long argued that Republicans' strongest political base is the so-called investor class, in which they include the tens of millions of people who own stocks and bonds either directly or through individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and other retirement programs.<snip>

"Eighty percent of Americans don't have any savings, and these accounts wouldn't do anything for them," said Edward J. McCaffery, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California and author of books on tax policy. <snip>

But over the long run, the new savings accounts could be highly costly. The Tax Policy Center, a research venture run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, estimated that the Treasury could lose as much as $300 billion over the next decade and more after that.

[wryter2000]

1. Candidates?

Jump on this one.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. I'm afraid

that the more bush sees 'the handwriting on the wall,' the more he will try to push through policies that he plans to leave as a legacy. He wants to make sure he has his rich friends on HIS side when he's booted out of the White House.

:puke:

[denverbill]

2. How does this jive with the pukies idiotic charts?

You know, the ones that show the top 5% paying 50% of all taxes?

If you eliminate all taxes on 90% of their income, won't that mean taxes have to go up on everyone else? (why, yes Bill, it would)

[papau]

4. Nope - chart stays - just don't count investment income in "income"

so it will look like those poor rich folks are so heavily taxed (albeit on wage income that is only 10% of total income) that it is a drag on our economy.

Do not think - just vote GOP - Trust Bush

[dfong63]

5. why is it?

that repubs seem to think it's a wonderful idea, that only working stiffs should have to pay taxes??!!

the only form of income that is fully taxable is that paid by Ordinary Joes and Janes and earned by the sweat of their brows.

Another theme that Mr. Bush has stressed is the desire to encourage an "ownership society," in part by reducing taxes as much as possible on investment income.

read: "if you're not rich enough to be an owner, you're gonna get screwed."

wtf ever happened to the ideal of a "society of people who WORK for a living"?

[blu_dog]

6. I don't pay taxes.

I work 2 jobs. I make about 55K a year. I got ALL my fed withholding back, child tax credits, and earned income tax credits. If we had a flat tax, I would have paid something.

Food for thought!

[papau]

7. earned income tax credits dies at $28000 - in any case you did not get

back your payroll tax -

indeed even the excess portion of your payroll tax - the part that is not needed this year - went to finance the tax cut for the rich.

[ramapo]

8. Mostly a bad idea

Years ago there was an exemption for interest income with a cap. I don't recall the cap but it wasn't too high.

Savings does need to be encouraged and I believe that investment income should be exempt but up to a limit. If I'm sitting home living off nothing but interest and dividends of some significant amount, then I should be taxed. After all, I'm still enjoying the services of my federal govt.