Gore vs. Bush tax calculator

[narayan]

http://www.taxclarity.com/

[jad1097]

It is using fuzzy math.

[embalmerd]

Not to mention the fact that the Bush Plan will destroy Public Education, Social Security and Medicare. Eventually they'll try to funnel trillions of middle class taxpayer dollars through the Pentagon to build Bigger and Better Guns.

Guns or Butter Economics 101.

Dead Man Walking

[socalgal]

rof

jad, your fuzzy math http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[tonym]

Save $3570 Bush
Save $0 Gore

Zero is such a smooooooth number. No fuzz there!!!

No brainer here!

And sorry embalmered, the public schools, medicare and social security were destroyed long before any rebate plan by Dubya!

And when you're a coal mine slave for a hostile foreign power in the forseeable future, you'll pray aloud that we should have spent dollars enough to keep us strong and free...

Tony

[Joel Kleppinger]

These last months and years have been nothing other than a debate of logic vs. emotion.

Anyone that claims we don't pay too much in taxes should've been alive in some other country at some other time. It's amazing to realize that so many people have revolted over far less tax rates. Even we ourselves fought the revolutionary war because we were ticked over the fact that we were being taxed without say... If I'm not mistaken, it was a whopping 15% tax or so (if only God would grant us today a 15% tax :-/).

Logic dictates that government has always been and should always be ONLY for keeping the peace, both domestic and foreign, and settling disputes. When you start thinking about it, all of what can be truly considered government lies under that foundation. Once that premise is established, things (new inventions, at that) like Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and other social programs ARE NOT part of what made this country great.

I'll give the debater room to say that those programs were important in their day. I'll also concede that since we've committed to people, we should follow through on our commitments.

However, unless I'm doing something damaging to my fellow citizen or property (or perhaps even society in general), it is NOT my government's right to care what I do.

The fact is that most of the current implementations of programs flat suck. Can you think of a worse long-term investment than Social Security? I can't begin to express how excited I am just to hear Bush talk about the mere 3% I'd be able to invest how I'd like rather than simply following what the government thinks I should get.

It is our responsibility as individual people to take care of our own. However, that does NOT allow us to shove that responsibility on some government feel-good program. If only more people were taught to take responsibility for their actions and for their fellow man....

Why shouldn't Social Security, Welfare, and the like slowly be fased out (or rather greatly diminished)? I'm not saying just cut people off, but teach them how to take care of themselves and then LET THEM TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. Of course, with Medicare and Medicaid, people can't be taught to heal themselves, but there needs to be a call out to charitable and religious organizations to band together to assist these people to pass the torch of responsibility on to them.

Let government have government's job and let us have our freedom of spending money where we want to, including helping our fellow people in need. We aren't socialists here. We don't have to want what our neighbor has. I'll probably never be able to afford an NSX, but I'm glad brandon has the freedom to buy one (regardless of what I actually think about the wisdom of such a purchase http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif)... just like I'm glad people have the freedom to buy an SUV if they want.

Give a man freedom, show him responsibility, and demonstrate faith in his ability to make the two work. In a good system of checks and balances of power, the system will guide him along a path of generally positive action... even if he thinks he's doing it just for himself. That's the beauty of it. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Mntsnow]

First one is just ME the second on is both my wife and I.

You would save approximately $392.00 under the Gore proposal

You will save approximately $2590.00 under the Bush proposal.


Both of us.

You would save approximately $407.00 under the Gore proposal.

You will save approximately $4835.00 under the Bush proposal.


Hmmm???? Hard decision huh? LMAO Looks like this just confirmed what I thought http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Warthog]

What's cool is that the info to make this calculator is derived from both Gore's and Bush's websites. You can't argue facts.

Warthog

[gyoung]

Amen. Very well put. People will do wonderous things if they have the resources. But if the government is already (supposedly) doing it and you are spending your money into that parasitic program, you will be less likely to do something about it yourself.

I agree with you 100% percent or rather 10.84% ($971). That's how much I would save under Bush's plan. 0.0000% under Gore's plan which equates to $0.00, nada, nothing, zip, or zilch. I guess I make too much money for Al Gore.

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 10-11-2000).]

[BBA]

Under the Gore plan, I save nothing,
Under the Bush plan, I save $733.

Screw the lying sack of patooey gore!


[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Jeff7]

I suppose I'll have to reference you here: http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum17/HTML/001156.html

and have a look at my postings on economics, tax cuts, and inflation. Tax cuts are the last thing we need now; the economy is strong, and was a little too strong - it can grow with stability within the 3-5% range. It was growing too fast, and inflation was looming. Greenspan's interest rate hikes did a good job of keeping inflation down. If you restrict the spending money that people have, you can limit the rate of inflation. Giving people more money will not help that.
Not to mention, the tax cuts will mean even less revenue to the government, which does not help the national debt or social security at all.

[Joel Kleppinger]

It's that exact thing that I'm saying is NOT the responsibility of government. Most of the economy isn't covered under the "keep the peace and settle disputes" line.

It's not for the government to decide what they think we should do. Do you remember when there was no income tax? What about when there was no sales tax? You know there wasn't estate taxes? None at all. The goverment raised the majority of money from import tarrifs.

All of these new taxes (especially income and estate) are simply the result of COVETING. People want what other people have and since they can't steal it without a consequence, they tax it away and then create programs that will benefit themselves with the money.

I too have spent a good deal of time studying micro and macro economics, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the government's meddling in it turns sour 90% of the time. The market is marvelous at staying very near equilibrium.

And to anyone who thinks Tax cuts SHOULDN'T go to the wealthy (keep in mind that I am NOT in that category):
- 1% of our nation pays 50% of our taxes
- 25-40% (forget the exact number) of our nation doesn't pay income tax at all.

Here's what seems to miss most people. Think logically with me. Assume that the rich people already have more than they even want. So it's no longer about money or even themselves. So what are they going to do when they save $40-x00k on taxes? I believe they are simply going to invest it (what other alternative do they have?) And if they invest it, what happens to the markets? They go up. And if you're invested (which you should be), then what happens to your stock value? It goes up, too.

So, not only do you and I in the middle class have the advantage of paying less taxes, but we can watch our retirement funds increase in value even further. Following my theory, most tax cuts will go into investments, NOT spending. People will also have more to help their fellows with. It's a win-win-win situation.

[Joel Kleppinger]

BTW, blame Scott for my increasingly wordy posts. Ever since I started writing the newsletter.... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Fingers]

Joel, as long as your championing the fight against taxes, you have my permission to use as many words as necessary to get the point across. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

It should not be the government's role to dictate social policy through social program funding.

[embalmerd]

Keep talking Joel. You are a prime example of greed and selfishness. These programs that you wish to phase out are what, "taking care of your own," is all about.

Most of the people on Social Security today remember the stock market crash and "The Depression."

Be careful in what you wish for.

Dead Man Walking

[jeana]

Fingers, why not? It does so already, even for many things that a nonliberal might want to support (industrial development, population of nonurban areas.)

A country is composed of many individuals and interests, each of whom will tend to pursue a short-term, local-interest agenda under a completely laissez-faire system. As we know, the best strategy for an individual in isolation is not always the best strategy for an individual living in a group. And, it's obvious that what's good for the group is not always the best for the individual. A government must find a way to persuade individuals to do what is not in their direct best interest but is good for them in the long run or in the plural.

Joel, maybe as you get older you will begin to realize the limits that people must endure. I am just hitting an age where I am seeing the effects of mistakes I made when I was younger, and the limits imposed on me by my upbringing.

Personal responsibility and accountability are fine, but so is compassion. I have seen or known many people who lacked the sophistications and the life-skills to find and keep a job: it seems a simple deal for you and me to show up on time, to be neatly dressed, to work hard, and keep our tempers. But there are a lot of people who were never taught these life-skills by their families. What do you do when you're sick, in debt, have to take care of a dependent person, are simply a pathetic idiot, or all of these? The American dream is not as accessible as it should be.

Now, some people think that they would give more charity if they were taxed less. Maybe. Or, they think that they would invest money in companies that would create jobs with the extra $. Perhaps... but would these companies be kind enough to provide job training for the unemployed or food for the unemployable?

I find that some successful people, and especially those who were able to work their way up from the bottom, tend to be unsympathetic to the misfortunes or incompetence of others. Perhaps they are thinking that luck, the favorable environment provided by the USA, and the kindness of others had nothing to do with their success.
I am NOT saying that you are one of these people... but I hope you won't become one.

narayan, kudos for an interesting site. I haven't the energy to fact-check it, but hopefully time will tell whether their assumptions are correct and what their biases may be. Lower taxes have never been the strength of the Democrats. I save something like $400 under Bush's plan, according to this site. If I had that $400, would I give it to charity, or to the military, or to research energy-efficient cars?

It's right to be angry at the amount of taxes
and it is true that our tax money is not spent as efficiently as it ought to be. At any rate, this is a much better basis on which to decide the vote than the "character" issues that you brought up earlier, narayan.

This is just my two cents ($400). http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[tonym]

Well said Joel! Thank you.

And you are NOT greedy for stating your opinion as eloquently as you have done. It's a funny way of looking at things if you believe that wanting to keep YOUR hard-earned money is GREEDY! It's just NOT so.

This remote-control altruism that folks use (using the goverment as their "Agent") is the worst form of greed that one can have. They WANT other people's money! They WANT to dictate how you will direct your charitable urges, first and foremost. After they get theirs, you can do whatever you want to do (but not too much!)

If those that want services and taxes and bureaucracy really want it, would they volunteer to pay EXTRA THEMSELVES to get it? I think NOT!! If I want health or life or car insurance, I have to opt to select and pay for it. I do pretty good because I know what I want and I reserach it and then I pay for it. When you use an Agent to do this for you, you will get something that's not in YOUR best interest, and not in ANYONE's best interest if the Agent procures for all. It will be an inferior solution for me (or you).

It all comes down to: OTHERS may see a particular situation as requiring compassion (read this money and taxes), and if I DON'T want to support this situation, then I'm greedy. It comes down to name calling and bullying and illogical pressure on the folks that would like to have individual identity. And this includes the decision to spend THEIR money the way THEY want to!


Tony

[embalmerd]

Well said indeed! You Tony, and Joel are showing the true colors of "Compassionate Conservatism." In all of your honest grandiose pomposity, you have proven my point.

[Joel Kleppinger]

embalmerd (or embalmed?), just WHO the heck are YOU to call me greedy or selfish? Do you know the hours I spend helping people much less fortunate than myself or the dollars I give to different charitable organizations? I think not. You must surely assume that because I have some pompous fancy title next to my name and the fact that I promote freedom (including freedom of money) so heavily that I must be quite greedy.

THIS is my point. It's not the government's responsibility to improve this nation socially. It's yours. It's mine. That's what PERSONAL responsibility is all about. I know what the government is supposed to be for; do you?

Of course, I'm talking ideally in this writing. It's not like things can be done overnight or even over the course of a decade. I don't expect that. However, I do expect that people be taught how to think of themselves (thus nullifying Social Security) and how to think of others (thus wiping out Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid) and then given the freedom to act it out.

Compassion is NOT adding people on the rolls of programs, but getting those people to the point where they no longer need the program and can get off it.

You are so right. This is a selfish, materialistic society. But passing the "compassion" buck off to the government is one of the sickest excuses for a serious lack of personal compassion that I can think of. Are you aware that Social Security is actually a tax or have you never read the Soviet law about it? They set the age at 65 to make people think they ought to get there, but statistically figured that 90% wouldn't. The U.S. actually used the same numbers (it's all a mind game), but it worked out differently for us because our lifespans continually increased throughout the century.

You're also right. We have gotten what we asked for. We didn't want to have to deal with problems ourselves so we passed it on to the government. Now our taxes are at insane amounts (Keep in mind that you don't know how much I make and you probably are significantly over-estimating... I'm an "employee", not an owner http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif). We got what we asked for all right... and I'm sick of asking for it.

My cry is simply that we should let the government handle things that private enterprise, organizations, and individuals cannot handle, rather than the other way around. Compassion is not in grand buildings and large social funding, but in a simple helping hand on a rainy Saturday.

[This message has been edited by Joel Kleppinger (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Underclocked]

There needs to be the social net for those in need, and especially for those that cannot help themselves out of a bad situation (sometimes IMPOSSIBLE situation), but to think the federal government's place is to care for all problems - a panacea for all private woes - is delusional and self defeating. The price is a government out of control, a government out of the bounds of the Constitution, and a people evermore dependent on Big Brother.
People must learn to make choices that lead to positive results and stand on their own feet when possible.
How many babies give up the bottle without some serious encouragement?
Yes there is a definite place for compassion and lately there has been little compassion for the small business sector. There is a continuing need for a lessening of intervention in our individual lives by the Federal government. To start a small business today is a horribly detailed and frightening prospect whereas in years past a few bucks combined with a good idea and you were on the way.
Compassion needs to be tempered with some rare "common sense". The old saying about "teach a man to fish" comes to mind.

Good work Joel!

[bdunn]

Gee I tried those tax calcualtors. We get $12 more in tax savings from Bush vs Gore. I'm more inclined to vote for Gore anyway $12 be damned. I disagree with them both on some issues but Bush doesn't seem presidential.

[embalmerd]

HELLO, is this Republican Cental?

Can I get a witness? Millions of Baby Boomers built the Social Security system and paid into it for their entire, *deleted*busting, lives. Now you young punks want to take it all away, because somebody isn't a productive member of your generation?

Perhaps you'll understand it this way better. The government took over care because private enterprise uses and abuses it's employees and cares even less how they retire (i.e. die). Industry chews up people and spits them out as waste. Industry should at least be taxed for the diposal of it's own waste.

You don't know what crying is about. And I enjoy walking in the rain.

Dead Man Walking

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Underclocked]

embalmerd, just how old are you?

[embalmerd]

Old enough to know better ...

[jeana]

On relying on personal charity rather than
state-sponsored charity: humans have been there and done that. Many times generosity has achieved great things; in many more cases people have died of want. If we were to rely on the goodness of others to take care of every unlucky soul in this country, their care would be subject to greater variation: in some cases a philanthropist or church might build soup kitchens and hospitals; in other cases, more of the poor will be left to beg in the street, as they did in older times. (in Europe, at least: one reason the idealized USA of the past didn't have so many problems as we do today was because the population was smaller and more homogeneous.)

With guaranteed, state-sponsored charity, everyone can rely on a monthly check and retirement nest egg, however small, an education, however poor, and health care, however bureaucratically ministered.

While Communism is seen to stifle industry and ambition, leading to a gray mediocrity,
Capitalism leads to too much variation. Those on the edge of things (the poor, the young, the sick, and the old) cannot risk too much of the up and down before they hit zero. "Gambler's ruin."

That's why I support a _modest_ amount of socialism in what should otherwise be a free-market state.

I give great respect to those who give charity on top of their taxes (you among them, Joel.) I don't think that calling anyone greedy is helpful. Just some of us happen to differ in opinion in what is best for all of us. It would be nice if everyone could be taught to think of others and share... it would be nice if everyone could learn to take care of themselves... it is true that too comfortable a safety net causes some people to just snuggle up and not try to better themselves. However, I can't bring myself to do the gamble that removing the safety net will bring about more good than bad.

-Jeana

[BBA]

jeana...

IMHO....A garenteed check so that everyone can rely on the check for MINIMAL susbsistance is good...

-BUT-

Our government can not regulate that very effectively, so I am opposed to it.

The most common occurance being "when I lost the job, I needeed money now...but I had to wait for 6 months to get the first check so I don't want to jeopardize it by discontinueing the payments just yet"....

In otherwords, locally administered funding can be much more timely, effective and would breed a sense of "comunity" where federal programs just do not work.

Therefore, I do not believe my federal tax dollars are being used effectively for the purpose. I do not desire to fund ineffective programs any more.

[Joel Kleppinger]

My above posts are actually being read through completely, right?

I'm NOT for leaving people hanging. However, I am someone that NEVER expects to see their Social Security returned. For me, it's a gift to a beaureacratic agency which trickles a portion of it down to older people who have paid their dues.

I guess that's why I'm so stoked about the Bush SS plan. It actually allows me to control MY money, even if only 3% of it. And there's at least a decent possibility I'll get to see it since it will literally have MY name on it. That's not greed; that's stewardship.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the industry or industrial/business whatever. There should be plenty of scrutiny and suspicion of their practices. I just trust the government a little less since there is no one to watch over them except us. The system of checks and balances is slowly eroding, and that bothers me. Even the fact that we are now a democracy (rather than a republic as we started) also bothers me. This isn't the nation our founding fathers set up.

You know what's wild embalmerd? You might even have met or know of my grandfather, Clyde Kleppinger, a funeral director from Jewell, KS. I only wish you would have.

Oh, and I used "cry" as like "shout" or "yell" or "town crier." I had a feeling it would get twisted as it was, but my mind couldn't come up with a better synonym when I was writing it.

My main concern is freedom. I have it and I love it. My goal in life is simple. It is to keep the freedom I have and to share it with everyone I can.

[tonym]

embalmered,

You prove my point on this whole thing with your generalizations and "ir"rationalizations!

Screw 'em. They can afford it! But how the hell do you know that I can or that Joel can or that ANYONE can, for that matter? I'm old enough to know better...been paying into the system for over 25 years, so I think I've earned *****ing rights too, old timer!

I was always taught to "speak for myself". So I do. I think that very personal things like taxes and one's personal finances are the domain of the individual -- it's just none of your or Uncle Whiskas business how much I make, nor is it my business how much you make. But that's not the world we live in. We are all categorized and ranked and listed, and we pay according to how much we make. I'd personally like to see the guy that makes 100 time what I do get 100 times as many votes as I do. But I digress...

Broad-brush assumptions about motivations show that all you care about are the results. If the government were to go "poof", and disappear tomorrow, do you think that people couldn't survive without it? Of course they would! If you think that people NEED the social programs that our government "blesses" us with, then you don't give people credit for any drive, ingenuity or initiative! Sure, there would be a time of discomfort, but we ALL would survive. But the government counts on people DEPENDING" on the programs to fulfill it's place in society. A dependent populous is a loyal and happy one!

And someday it won't be debatable, the house of cards WILL fall. We will be forced to make hard decisions on the health/welfare/quality of life of our elderly under the shadow of a broken and bankrupt social dole system.

But right now we have the opportunity to fix what's broken. I'd rather see the elderly get a return on an investment, which is truly what Social Security is, and be able to live with dignity rather than to get a hardscrabble crumb from the "Uncle" and barely get by in the years they deserve to enjoy. But if thats what you want, then you're part of the "fool's errand" to keep the system as it is and keep the elderly as hostages for political gain. Politicians want us all to buy the line that spending more will actually make things better. But as spending increases year-to-year, ask the elderly who get the additional scrap of a COLA (cost of...) to buy an extra can of cat food or tuna. Boy, the system is soooooo generous and loving.

Tony

[gyoung]

It shouldn't be the job of government to watch companies. If abuses by companies are so bad people like Nader and other watchdog groups are out there to tell us. That is how we get companies to change their practices.

Let's see, how do we prevent Nike from not using child labor? Organize and don't buy their products. We, the people, have more power than the government when it comes to regulating corporations. All we have to do is stop buying. Now in the situations when we don't stop buying, then our "necessity" must not be that important. If it is important then someone will organize and let us know. Get it out of the governments hands. The informed public knows best!

As to Social Security, I admit that there are people that need help. But it's not the government's responsibility. It's the churches, the neighbors, the communities, organizations that make it their cause. Have you noticed that we don't know our neighbors anymore? It's because the government sends out checks. There isn't a public outcry for people starving in the streets. If there were then people would do something about it. It's all about empowering people. This will sound rash, but if people don't see the suffering then they ignore it. If they did see it, more people would be inspired to do something about it.

I propose this: If there were not Social Security, you would see more people being taken care of by their kids and families. If there were no welfare, you would see more people like Mother Theresa. Since their is no motivation (because of the government taking this role in society) you don't see people being inspired.

The government actually is preventing great things from happening. How many times in history do you read about a government doing great things for people? What you read about is people doing great things for people.