Bush Plans Tax Code Overhaul -WP

The Bush administration is eyeing an overhaul of the tax code that would drastically cut, if not eliminate, taxes on savings and investment, but it is unlikely to try to replace the existing tax code with a single flat income tax rate or a national sales tax, according to several sources familiar with ongoing tax deliberations.

During his reelection campaign, President Bush piqued interest among conservatives and liberals alike when he said replacing the income tax with a national sales tax was "an interesting idea." Just after the election he signaled that tax policy would be a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, reiterating his pledge to name a bipartisan panel to draft a fundamental tax reform proposal. That sent conservatives scurrying into either the flat tax or sales tax camp to muster political momentum.
...........
Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering.......scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58554-2004Nov17.html

Absolutely no "flat tax" proposal from the right has ever proposed taxing corporate income at an equal or higher rate and under equivalent rules as personal income.
Absolutely no "flat tax" proposal from the right has ever proposed taxing captial gains income at an equal or higher rate and under equivalent rules as personal income.
Absolutely no "flat tax" proposal from the right has ever proposed taxing dividend income at an equal or higher rate and under the equivalent as personal income.
Absolutely no "flat tax" proposal from the right has ever proposed taxing inheritance income at an equal or higher rate and under equivalent rules as personal income.

The tax on the worker's income from his or her own labor is and will always be (under any right wing proposal) far, far higher than any tax on the income others receive from that worker's labor.

The moral of the story: slaves are taxed; slave-owners are not.

No....

but tax reform is newspeak for flat tax for us proles

... without using quotation marks or other indicators of propagandistic terminology, I'm inclined to point out that the only thing "flat" about a "flat tax" is that it's a flat-out lie.

Proposing a REAL flat tax? Not the one they keep prosing, but put together a flat tax on ALL INCOMES FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED (you know the tax code section 61 I believe)

Let's face it, a majority of people HATE the tax code. So how can we make it fair for everyone and sell that message to the people. Flat tax on ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED.

20% on income.
20% in Dividends.
20% on investments.
20% on interest.

I don't personally believe that is the perfect system, but it would be an easy sell to the American people. You can easily shoot down the GOP plan by pointing out that the rich derrive most of their "INCOME" from areas outside their "SALARY" Show a couple of charts of how the "millionaire next door" would pay exactly the same taxes as you under the GOP flat tax and then show the difference and people will come over to our side.

20% of the salary of someone making $20,000 a year is $4000.

20% of the salary of someone making $100,000 is $20,000.

20% of the salary of someone making $1,000,000 a year is $200,000.

Who's going to be worse off with thise proposal: the person left with only $16,000 after taxes, the person left with only $80,000 after taxes, or the person left with only (I cringed when I wrote that) $800,000 after taxes?

All flat taxes penalize the poor, period, whether it's flat income taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, food taxes, etc.

Unfortunately, you have it exactly right. Only wages will be taxed. It should be the other way around, money, used to make money, should be taxed more.

I'm skeptical that they will ever get the flat tax thru. Most likely to get a reasonable rate, they would have to step on too many toes in removing deductions.

Bush's wealthy base also might not go along with the final result. The ultimate rate could be higher than they are paying with all tax avoidence schemies available.

On the unlikley event they could have a low rate while preserving some worthwhile deductions, and still bring in enough revenue, then I'd have no objection. In theory there is one possible benefit to this. A fortune is wasted on both record keeping for all the current deductions, as well as tax avoidence schemes which still cost money to get the tax breaks.

Thats what I'm going to tell everyone who voted for Bush. Yes, you're getting exactly what you wanted. No Gay Marriage, but no health insurance. No womens rights. But, higher taxes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mainly blue states that have state and local income taxes. 30 years ago you used to get a tax CREDIT for these taxes. Since Reagan, you only get a deduction. Now thats going out the window.

When I worked in Ohio we had a state income tax at 4% and a Cleveland city tax at 2%. In a good year, these taxes put me above the standard deduction, and with real estate taxes and charitable contributions, I could count on a good refund every year.

Bush said during the debates, that Kerry was going to raise small business taxes. Well, this isn't only a tax increase, but it will cost millions their health care.

I think this is my 500th post, and I was hoping to use it for something positive.

Well, maybe it is. I'm gonna start looking at New Zealand real estate.

Adventure capital of the world and all. :)

GeeDub and dastardly dick are gonna make things as profitable for themselves as they can.

damn good thing this is only being done to help the economy.

up rather nicely. She made $20k one year on interest from investments alone. That is almost half of what I make and I work more than 40 hours a week. With Bush's new tax schemes she and her class stand to benefit nicely.

Well, at least Jenna and Tonic wont have to worry about paying taxes on their money, after all they don't have to WORK for it.

Especially when you are running a $450 billion dollar deficit.

This is what he's moving towards. Only people who have to work will pay taxes. The rich will just sit on their tax-free investments like some overlord class, watching the serfs till the fields.

:grr:

DTH

Tax work but not ownership.

The words of John Edwards' early stump speech ring true: "The only thing George Bush respects is wealth."

let them eat cake.

Tax codes can be/are changed all the time...what goes around comes around. It's just our collective bad luck to be here at this point in the process- a lot of us have had to endure nixon, raygun, poppa smirk, and now...this.

but this too shall pass-
and in the mean-time, we may have front-row seats to some X-citing events!!

always look at the bright si-ide of life...

And there is nothing bright about this.


Dark day's this way come.

slight correction --- when people are out of work -- bush* says "gollly, let them sell cakes..."

majority wants. so we should just get use to it.

Tax the working class so that the wealthy are served.

Unless you are a multimillionaire of course.

as we move to a nicely regressive society in which only labor is taxed. Unfortunately the rest of us (except the uber-$$$) will have to suffer too (all swirling around in the toilet together as the country goes down the crapper).

it is unbelievable.

The uber-wealthy around the world are about to rape us. This country is going to be totally depleated by the time folks wise up.

you'd think that there's NO WAY they could get rid of it...
but then-
we also thought that there was NO WAY...it would be back in office.

we ABSOLUTELY have to keep them from gaining a 60-seat majority in the senate in 2006...otherwise it's definitely GAME OVER.

Middle class homeowners in places like NY and NJ with high property taxes will get slaughtered under this paln. I tried to tell people, but they just feel so SAAAAFFFEEE with this idiot. THey'll feel real safe when they can't keep their homes.

without the mortgage deduction, there's no such thing as a middle-class homeowner.

He has said flat out he won't end the mortgage deduction - which makes sense - because really rich cronies with mega deductions win out. Also, Bush is doing anything he can to keep the housing bubble going (and the lifetime accounts/ privitization of Soc Sec are aimed at the stock bubble, which hasn't fully crashed yet). The mortgage deduction doesn't help many people who own average priced homes - it is really for the rich. We previously bought a house for 80K and found that it was less than our personal deduction. Even at 172K it is doubtful the mortgage deduction will mean much. Slate did a great article on this a while ago (you can probably find it in their search engine).

If they (Bushies) end deductions of local and state taxes, that will include property tax, and that will hurt average people and especially those in high prop tax (Blue) states, a lot.

One thing I noticed when I appealed (and won) a property tax increase is that many people who own true mansions have their properties greatly underassessed, and the little people with average homes pick up the slack. This is one reason I think the double taxation (yes that is what they are up to) of property is a win for the wealth oriented Bushies - assessments are not all created equal.

Did no one else notice that they are considering scrapping the business tax deduction for health insurance? This would be an unmitigated disaster. Health Care premiums are one of the fastest growing expenses for businesses (we can debate causes in another forum). If you think what comes out of your check is a lot of money, consider that your company is paying something like 75% of your premium and 50% of your dependents' premiums (that's a rough average). Right now, they get a tax break for this, but even so, the costs are such that some companies can't afford to offer it to their employees. Eliminating the tax deduction for these premiums would cause more companies to dump their health insurance or have the employees pay a greater portion of the premium. More people won't be able to afford the insurance and will go without it.

But folks, lets be honest, when we talk about the big, evil corporations getting tax breaks, the deduction for health insurance is one of those things. Our tax code is a mess, but there is some beauty in it. I'm all in favor of the so called "corporate welfare" I just think it ought to have strings attached.

the jaw dropper.

How many companies (small businesses and even bigger ones) that are struggling to pay for insurance for their employee's will drop it now?

The prices have gone up enormously. The employee's payments out of their paychecks have gone up a ton (canceling out any raises many people, like my Mom, receive during their annual reviews) but the amount the companies are paying out has also increased enormously.

This is a total disaster.

Is Bush trying to see how many more people can drop into the uninsured rolls in the next four years? or could this just be the terrible idea they will drop during negotiations to get the rest of the crap passed?

:wow:

that folks don't talk policy - disdain policy - don't understand policy that the only thing that drives policy is cynical POLITICS. This is a big pander to flat taxers and wealthy donors - which will EXPAND the number of uninsured.

In a time when health insurance costs to businesses and nonprofits is increasing exponentially (and the "lawsuit costs" they want to curb as an "answer" accounts for less than 2% of those costs)... cutting out the one incentive for businesses to keep providing coverage?

Note: this is BURIED in the story. Will we see it as a headline? If not, even if/when it goes through - watch noone make the connection of swelling ranks of uninsured as being in DIRECT relationship to actions of this administration.

Republicans.

Small business owners are not going to be happy about this, and if they remove the health insurance deduction for the self-employed, which JUST REACHED 100% this year, I'm going to be even more livid than before.

(my husband is one) the cost of insuring our employees is enormous and in many cases prohibitive to hiring more full time help..... there are only 10 of us now and we were 15 a year ago and we have only gotten busier but insurance is one of the things that is killing us... My mother and I were dumped for a year to save the business some money...

Some states (red) are more powerful than others (blue) while the more powerful states owe ill-defined services to the lesser ones. Servitude of the vassal states toward the governing state(s) is well defined while reciprocal benefits are not.

This seems to be the direction we are heading: lords and serfs.

Yes, this is a serious issue. I've seen mention of this elsewhere, such as an item on Kos yesterday.

It follows the trend. Bush's health care policies tend towards elimination of the current system of employer paid health care. On one level Bush has pushed HMO's which are being used as a scheme to make it easier to deny payment for health care expenses. Moving towards tax deferred health accounts for people to pay their own expenses is another step in that direction. (Like the average person could put away enough to really pay for health care). This is just another step in their overall plans.

health insurance I wonder what that does to the Cobra law. Any ideas?

This is HIDEOUS.

Not only does it deprive working people of a necessity, it creates unfair competition between HUGE biz and small/medium bizness, who won't be able to get good workers.

... because according to the laws of "survival of the fittest," they should all do us a favor and DIE.

:)

"To pay for those large tax cuts, the administration is looking at eliminating both the deduction for state and local taxes, . . . "

Only this time it'd be true ... instead of the bald-faced LIE they used to describe the estate tax.

which pay more in federal taxes then they get back.

for single individuals who lose their healthcare due to this action - and much more for families. That is only for those who have that much money to be able to pay - look for others who used to be covered thrown into permanent poverty after a single long or serious health care issue.

Welcome to my nightmare (er, life) - Repub congress has been chipping away at low income health coverage for awhile now. Lots of people (kids included) that used to get medical have being squeezed out of the programs. I personally know several - one w/terminal cancer (his SSI was finally approved, AFTER he died - one a child w/heart defect in a wheelchair, his grandparents have lost everything they saved for their old age making up for their cuts - another is my grandson, I have had to battle for medi-cal for him for the last 6 years (& they keep trying to cut him off on a regular basis - like you grow new intestines back after they are removed!). Bush is just trying to spread the joy around - cheers, folks! I had so much hope for some hope for the future & since Nov.2 I just can't seem to

Are we supposed to go away &

before the "have to have more taxcuts" craze that started with Reagan - the safety net - designed to take care of exactly the situations you describe - worked much better. Where the need is clear - there should not be huge fights just to keep folks enrolled and alive. receiving approval after death - disgusting. Where is this "culture of life" that bush espouses?

My heart cries out for your grandson and family - may you soon not have to battle to keep your grandson alive and healthy.

That's how they'll get away with it. Most people file the short form. If they want extra pacification of the peasantry, they'll add in a small increase to the standard deduction so that people think Bush is looking out for them.

health insurance through your employer. Don't think that the latter has anything to do with itemizing.

I don't think that tax increase (you are right - it's true double taxation) will get through a Republican congress.

I think they are just going to pass the cuts (investment shelters for the wealthy), in the end. Also - not the flat tax either.

The increases and talk of flat tax are just a smoke screen in order to repackage tax cuts for the wealthy as reform.

They are going to bankrupt the US government.

people finally get what they asked for on November 2nd. Let those trailer trash hillbillies eat their values and bibles when they get hungry. I'm going to start saving and not pay any taxes at all on those.

in the blue states.

"The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said."

New Jersey pays the most tax and we get the least back. Now they want to take away our deductions. It's not going to hurt them it's to punish the blue states plain and simple.

:puke:

So we don't pay a state income tax. We pay property taxes and sales taxes that are 2-4 times the rate in states with income taxes. And those extremely high, extremely regressive sales taxes haven't been deductible for some time. This plan screws workers everywhere- not just in blue states.


Believe it or not, Texas actually pays more in to the feds than we get back, too. It's the main sellingpoint I've tried to use for the past 15 years as to why we need a state income tax.

I still own a home in Ohio (Cleveland). Same value as the home I own in Florida. Property taxes are currently $2400 per year in cleveland vs $1400 in Florida. In Ohio I paid 4% State tax plus 2% city tax, plus 7 1/2 percent sales tax. In Florida I pay a 7% sales tax.

Bush defies expectations again. How low do we have to go before people wise up?

Of what Kerry proposed...big deductions to ENCOURAGE employers top rovide health insurance!!

How many more uninsured will there be????? BUT WHO CARES, RIGHT????


To pay for them, the administration is considering.......scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.

BULLSH*T

:nuke: You Know WHO :nuke: You know WHO :nuke: You Know WHO :nuke: You know WHO :nuke: You Know WHO :nuke: You know WHO :nuke: You Know WHO :nuke: You know WHO :nuke:

including some of the most wealthy campaign contributors to the Republican Party and Bush/Cheney campaign. If Republicans hope to lose Congress in 2006, just scrap this deduction.

The resulting tax revolt will be bigger than in 1986 and 1992.

Unless a small business comes together to protest. I can't see that happening. We have no one to speak for us. The Chamber of Commerce takes government subsidies in our county and is gung-ho every new ReThug law coming out. The Small Business Association, ReThugican.

Besides, business is the enemy. We'll have to roll over, so the the lilies in the field don't have to spin.

but who have clout - are the insurance and pharmaceutical companies - they really don't want to lose a big chunck of their income due to swelling uninsured (eg nonconsumers of healthcare.)

once Medicare is gone and most working people do not have insurance through their employer?

I don't. Most of it will be dismantled, and with it one of the few growth industries remaining in this country.

he had just told me that the local hospital was likely to stop taking uninsured patients because they couldn't afford to cover the loss... this was after two practices were about to go to no service without insurance for the same reason. To be clear the hospital has not yet done it (and it is the only service provider in maybe a 50 mile radius).... so I asked ... so who delivers the babies of the uninsured? Flew over the head.... as if amidst all of the grousing of the costs of covering medicaid patients NOONE had ever considered tht poor people and working poor would still get pregnant even if all of the providers refused to give service. er... I was speechless - and just suggested that he and his colleagues give some thought to this situation were every last option to pregnant women for service and delivery cut off to those who were uninsured. Mind you this is in a pro-life bastion- but when it is their practices they didn't seem to give much thought to what pro-life really means.

I think that the few decant hospitals left will be corporate owned by the big corporations and treat only those that have their insurance. Management of the same corporations. The hell with the workers.

But I fear that this is the way it must be.

One small step for republicans. One giant leap for the revolutionists.

One wonders: will the republicans still support the second amendment once the rebels fill the streets?

Without health insurance, I'm a walking corpse.

They will just get rid of the Health Care Insurance for their employees en masse. Because, after all the math is done, not paying for health insurance at all is still more profitable.

And if anyone asks, they will wash their hands in innocence and blame the skyrocketing prices of H.C.I. and the scrapping of the Tax deduction on H.C.I. for their actions, which were necessary for the survival of the company.

Of course, those who dare to question such actions will be targeted for the next necessary sanitation.

The next probable step? Be healthy or be fired...?

You're correct- the deduction elimination won't be blamed. they'll simply blame it all on those oh so frivolous lawsuits driving up the costs...

small businesses may scream, but the big corporations with hundreds of employees are going to LOVE this!

think for a sec, they are all bitching about rising health care/insurance costs eating away at their profits etc. They don't want to provide insurance anymore but they "have to" because everyone else does it.

Now, they can legitimately tell their employees, "I'm sorry, but we truly cannot afford to provide you health coverage any more". Voila, coporations around the country stop providing insurance, corporate profits go up (because don't expect them to pass the savings on to the employees), business investments go up, GOP donations go up......

and the little people are stuck with nothing.

in Canada; but that's illegal, until this legislation passes, and all of a sudden, out of the goodness of their hearts, they are willing to allow us to get drugs from Canada, and so on...

Ma and Pa's grocery is doomed, but Wal-Mart CAN'T WAIT for this.

The only bizness that will hurt from this is small to medium, and W couldn't care less about them.

Corporations don't really care about profits, only politics.

Why should Democrats even bother if Bush is so invincible?

I can't type what I'm thinking right now. THIS CRAP NEEDS TO END NOW!!!!!

" The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said."


ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could not put into words my outrage.

Slaves I tell you, Slaves.. thats the plan.. the slave class and the others...

THEM!

This is it... officially the WORST FREAKING TAX IDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!

I understand the rational behind a flat tax, a national sales or other such taxes. I don't think they work as proposed and need to be more progressive, but at least I understand the concept!

"shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment "

HOW THE BLOODLY HELL DOES ANY OF THAT SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH??? On what planet does creating money with ONLY OTHER MONEY SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH?!?!?!

I am just... just... I am flabbergasted.

Can someone PLEASE try to explain to me the rationale behind this????

When I read this I had one.

:hurts: :wow:

Removing the deduction for health insurance will mean that this cost to the corporation will be removed (except for management of course) and that will increase the profit of the corporation which will be passed on to the stockholders. Of course upper management will still get their stock options, and since income from converted options will not be taxable, all of the costs that went to health insurance will be converted to stockholder profit tax free.

But to answer your question on economic growth here goes.

When all this money becomes available, those that have it will spend it. The repug claim that the extra income to the wealthy will be invested was proven wrong the last time they got a boon. But they did invest. They invested in yachts, airplanes, and other megabuck trinkets. But since the industries producing these baubles were rather small, it was not felt thru the economy.

As a side note, I seem to recall an item in a magazine in my accountants office that explained how, thru the use of self corporations these horribly expensive playthings could be taken as an expence which means they were free to the individuals who bought them. Now that's true republican thinking.

I can't do any better than these people to stop america from being a frightening imperialist power. they starve the beast faster than any of us can.

well, time to start setting up asylum applications and citizenship changes... and spend down to the last penny, strip mining this empire, and let these idiots be in control of an empty shell. let them see why a fully fleshed gov't is important -- the hard way!

time for us to start creating pools to help as many 'blue' people we can escape, the writing is on the wall, the ship is sinking. time to eat the last of the food and scurry off before the waves crest over.

allez! allez!

I pay $3600. for health insurance for my employees (5), and now President Rove wants to cut my tax deduction. They really hate the workers of the US.

once born he does not give a dhit about you. Unless of course you are a gazillionare contributor.

I might as well die now.

is dead within the year.

Nice knowing you...

:scared:

by the time i get money that i can invest and have tax free interest on. i won't be able to make money any more. the chasm will be too wide to cross.

Last time they talked about this I did the calculations. My Family is middle class with children and a mortgage. A flat tax will double my taxes (and all middle class families like us). I would think this would be political suicide for the repubs, but then nothing makes sense any more.

My family would pay considerably less since they're rich. It is unconscionable that the working and middle class should have to pay far more so that we can have a 10-15% cut.

It ultimately works to our detriment as well, too, since fewer people will be able to actively participate in the economy. What good is it to be able to produce a million cars, if nobody can afford to buy them?

Oh nevermind, I forgot, it's simple, so that makes it all okay.

You very well may be right, but I'm wondering more specificlaly how you figured this. The key question is what the tax rate would be under such a plan. People can argue in principle endlessly, but the key to all of this is what the new rate would be, and how many people would pay significantly more. Do you have any good data for predicting what the rate would be.

to replace the income tax would have to be somewhere around 36% (then add state and local sales taxes that already exist) or more to be revenue neutral. Imagine that everything would now cost 1/3 more than it does today.

Oh, and they call it a "consumption" tax so that it sounds less threatening.

Imagine seeing that 12,000.00 el-cheapo costing you 15 grand after federal taxes, 16 grand after state taxes and 17 grand after tags, title and other beaureucratic bs before you even hit the 8-24% interest rate most people will get shafted with during financing?

Over 5 years that would be a $40,000 dollar car - before you even figure in gas, maintenance, insurance and other crap

*GULP*

To pay for tax-cuts that won't means a hill of beans to me they are taking away the things that DO mean something to me:

"To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said."

Goodbye to Health Insurance folks! Hello to increased taxes for the majority. I sure hope everyone who voted for * is friggin happy now! But then again, they probably aren't paying attention.

reducing taxes on unearned income and making the rest of us pay for it.

I don't know why I even pay attention to the news. Just imagine the worst and I won't be surprised when it it happens.

My parents told me stories about the 1930s. It seems we better get ready.

If George Walker Bush had such a hardon for raising taxes on the working class and reducing incentives for employers to provide health insurance, then why wasn't bringing it up on the campaign trail? Mandate, my fucking ass. Even the redneck fucksticks that voted for him because they're homophobes or thought George Walker Bush would be a good guy to watch NASCAR with don't support bullshit like this. Fuck these assholes. :mad:

will take this without a fight. They will realize that they were lied to. (A sin) They will realize that Bush and his goons are greedy. (A sin) I look for Bush to keep Roe V Wade on the front burner, but in reality do nothing. (Yet, another sin?

There are far more fanatics on their side than ours, imho...who knows what they are capable of, once they figure it out?

in tax prep circles is this, *ush wants to limit itemized deductions (on the Schedule A)

He wants to keep itemized deductions limited to mortgage interest and charitble deductions there is no mention of real estate tax or DMV fees which can be hefty in a state like California or New York. Another downside to this regarding mortgage interest is that many people refinanced their homes in the last 5 years to a lower interest rate so the deductions for interest are going to be drastically lower which in turn could disallow people from being able to use the itemized deduction form Sch A and put them on the standard deduction amount.

that would mean that anyone who has misc business expenses from their employer like business miles (that aren't compensated for) and tools for their trade or education required for the job will be-- SOL

So for instance if you are in construction or sales and depend on your vehicle to write off expenses you won't be able to do this.

I have been in tax preparation for 10 years now and rumors of this kind of overhaul haven't been addressed since 1980's

If I hear anymore on this I will post as soon as I can.

The language used by the right is painting progressives into a corner. How can you defend a vote against the Clear Skies Act, American Jobs Creation Act, Working Families Tax Relief Act, Defense of Marriage Act, or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? On the surface, these all seem to be firm examples of benevolent legislation with nothing but the interests of the American people at heart.

In truth, all of these acts seek the opposite of what they claim. When presented in sound bite form, they strike an emotional chord intentionally designed to quell opposition. Under greater scrutiny they begin to unravel, though still inundated with doublespeak. Title VI of the American Jobs Creation Act is entitled Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform which is essentially a bailout for tobacco farmers (notice the similarity to "fair and balanced"?).

The details of all these pieces of legislation are even harder to muddle through. In order to truly understand their ramifications, a concerned citizen must attempt hours of extensive research and cross-referencing of previous bills dating as far back as 1938. Who has the time? The mass media, in their attempt to replace journalism with stenography is certainly not going to waste precious resources when the Peterson verdict has just been handed down.

By recording a vote against these initiatives, a politician will be perceived as anti-environment, anti-jobs, anti-working families, pro-taxes, or against seniors. Is it a coincidence that these are the core constituents of the Democratic Party? Is it a coincidence that the Patriot Act liberates citizens from civil liberties fought for by the original patriots of 1776? It is not.

In the wake of the election, progressives are up in arms about election fraud and voter suppression. After the 2000 Bush v. Gore debacle, concerned citizens from both ends of the spectrum demanded legislation to re-instill confidence in our electoral system. In response to these demands, President Bush signed HR3295, the Help America Vote Act, into law in October of 2002. At the signing ceremony, Bush called for "free and fair elections" and claimed "the vitality of America’s democracy depends on the fairness and accuracy of America’s elections." In his statement prior to signing, Bush listed a brief synopsis of the law’s key components and intent. Of particular interest, his statement "States must ensure that voting systems have minimal rates of error and allow voters a reasonable opportunity to review their ballots and correct any mistakes before a vote is cast"(for full text of this interview: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021029-1.html)

Americans were helped to vote by staunch republican allies such as Diebold Electronics, who apparently mistook the president’s call for "minimal rates of error" with "rates of error consistently favoring particular candidates". An honest mistake I’m sure. Democrats raised many concerns over the language of the bill, specifically in regard to audibility of voting systems, but faced strong opposition to such language by the republican leadership. Had the democrats held out on passing this legislation they, in effect, would be taking a position of not wanting Americans to vote.

The ruling party is beginning to announce its plans for the coming years. Tax cuts are being referred to as "tax relief" and "tax simplification". Corporate accountability for public safety is being disguised as "medical liability reform" and tort reform designed to eliminate "frivolous lawsuits" by those pesky "trial lawyers". Corporations can also look forward to an investment boon stemming from "social security reform (otherwise known as privatization)". The opposition must devise a new strategy to counter these Orwellian tactics.

Protests have long been the mechanism of dissent for the minority. Picture the evening news, a shot of protesters on the mall with signs reading "NO Clear Skies" or "NO Jobs for America". I hate to use the term "think outside the box," so I won’t. Instead, let me call on progressives to "think outside the corner", because that red paint is rapidly closing in.

http://mysite.verizon.net/biz8ua4a/

rich a free ride. :eyes:

How many of you think 90 percent of the employers out there would continue to provide health insurance as a benefit if they couldn't write it off?

Of course, this proposal only damages employees. And Bush doesn't give a shit about employees.

I have enough troubles paying the local tax as it is, and then to have to pay taxes on that money? AND lose my health insurance too?

I need a small plot of land and a frig-gen tent. Maybe we need to do what they did in the 60-70s communes!

I can't see how only buying blue will help me, it will more than likely put me out of a job. I can see how collective investments and blue funds would work. We can pool moneys and not pay taxes on what we make>?

I am really PISSED OFF HERE>> I will have to fire another screamer off to the papers now! Sheot.. I thought the Taliban camped outside Frist's office was bad, and then to re-write the House rules was bad..But this? This:? This is bad...

that with another 100 or so million people without health insurance, we may have enough votes to get a national health insurance plan.

That is if we are still allowed to vote.

with the tax code.

1) the phase outs of various deductions such as the earned income tax credit and itemized deductions.

2) The 7.5% limitation on medical deductions

3) The Alternative Minimum Tax.

However: there are also a lot of very good reasons that the tax code is as complicated as it is.

1) An individual discovers $4,000 in gold coins hidden in a Piano. (Cesarini vs.U.S. 296 F..SUPP.3 P631.6916)

2) Income taxes that a company pays on behalf of its founder (Old Colony Trust , et. al. vs Commissioner of the IRS)

3) Punitive Damages (IRS vs. Glenshaw Glass)

4) Fringe Benefits ( is it income???)

5) Gifts (is it income and who is taxed the recipient or the donor???)

6) Damages (it it income or replacement of capital assets)

7) Alimony (who pays the tax) (Hoover vs Commisioner 102
F3d 842)

There are way to many questions to be resolved by a simple flat tax; A flat tax on WHAT????

The tax code has become REALLY complicated due to the desire of some individuals to evade paying their fair share.

In my opinion:

Those who gain the most benefit from our system of government should pay the most in taxes...

That is fairness.,

:cry:

this type of policy and the weak labor movement that exists in the US. Only 13% of the US workforce is in a union and most of that is government workers. With so few people in the organized labor movement capital and its servants in DC is unchallenged. Most workers do not see themselves as members of a class that has always been in struggle against the forces of capital. If Americans received as much education about the early union movement as we do the industrialists, I guarantee you this would be a much different country.

The social contract between employer and employee is in shreds because the employer holds all the power and knows the employee is weak. With a strong union movement that is not the case. Even those in unions in this country aren't in strong unions, for the most part.

ACTUALLY SAYS!!!

http://anon.taxableincome.speedera.net/861Evidence/index.html