Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Remember the good old days?

  1. Aug 23, 2003 #1
    Back when Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class? Ah, the glory days...
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 23, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    what is defined as the middle class as far as income bracket? i received a few extra dollars on my paycheck recently when Bush lowered the taxes recently...certainly i am not promoting him, but i wonder what is regarded as the middle class? i thought it was for 30K-80K annually...
  4. Aug 23, 2003 #3
    The problem with Bush's tax cut is that you will pay back anything you get extra in your check, by way of increased state taxes over the next few years. In addition, your few extra dollars is nothing comared to teh tens of thousands that the top 1% will be getting.
  5. Aug 23, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    You're going to have to explain the difference here between increased state taxes you foresee due to Bush and the rise in my state and property taxes that were due to Clinton's unfunded mandates.
  6. Aug 23, 2003 #5
    Balanced budget, baby! Surpluses galore! Funded social programs!There's your difference.
  7. Aug 23, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    actually zero has a point...in the county i live in (the most populated one in oregon), once bush's tax cut came into effect, my county passed a mandatory 1% tax that is not paid through payroll, but will have to be paid at the end of the year...funny thing is that this county tax is equivalent to the tax cut bush created...
  8. Aug 23, 2003 #7
    If I remember correctly, Middle class taxes went up significantly during the clinton administration, at least ours, and overall they will probably go up during the bush administration too.

    That is the thing about government, I believe it was two years ago, congress stalled for about a month on a bill in a heated argument about weather to raise some tax bracket by 3% or 5%, both sides are so close, currently, that regardless of the party in control, taxes will increase.

    The biggest problem is government use of your money, Pork Barrel spending continues to increase and government knows it can always raise taxes for the populus with very little backlash if they find they need more money.

    I propose a fixed sales tax on everything, abolish the income tax, I'm not exactly sure what % the tax would be, lets say for the sake of argument 20%, on all items, that should be it, no sales tax, no sin tax, no estate tax, etc.. And make it fixed, and very hard to change so that government has a set percentage of american money to work with. The government should not be able to decide that they suddenly need more money so they then take more from you except in extreme circumstances, (extreme as in the only two in the twentieth century were world war I and II.)

    Think about how well this system would work, people still pay based on how much money they have, people with large amounts of money spend more than the poor and thus will pay more taxes. Also, think of the money we save by simplifying government right off the bat, we could cut the IRS by almost 95% or so, as the only thing it would need to do is check sellers, and not individual citizens. Also, the paperwork being saved, tax evasion being non-existant etc. would be a great incentive to the system.
  9. Aug 24, 2003 #8
    I pay 16% in income taxes. Recently all state public service fees (car registration, etc) were raised by more than 20%. The tax cut has not had any effect on my financial situation that I can measure.
    If you're very wealthy and make over 90k per year, then your taxes would have gone up. Clinton's tax policy was "progressive," it favored education and the 10-90k /yr households over richer Americans, whom it used to eliminate the deficit that was theirs to begin with.
    The difference is, one party will be honest with you and tell you that they're going to do it while the other will lie about it.
    Europe has done that, but not at the ludicrously high 20%. Sales taxes hurt those with the smallest amount of money the most, and such a huge tax burden would cripple the economy. Are you really going to get that $75 worth of groceries when it costs you $90?
    You could get around over-taxing the poor with a sales tax on more expensive items than groceries and other commodities, s/a items costing over $30,000, a year's salary for someone making $15/hr.
  10. Aug 24, 2003 #9
    donot forget that the working poor pay SS tax from dollar 1 at a 15% rate you only see 1/2 of that rate on your pay stub but the boss must match your rate yealding twice the stub deductions rate in the true total tax.

    so most working poor pay a higher rate of total tax then the rich, as there is no SS tax at all on capital gains and that rate is falling for the rich now under rerun bush's evil plans.

    BTW I figured BILL GATES's tax rate on his total increase in net worth for his MS stock gains [BILLIONS] vs his tax able income as boss [2 million] and it was .0025%or 25 cents per thousand dollars of his real worth was taxed ONLY BEFORE BUSH'S CUTS
    and rerun bush claims the rich are over taxed,!!! BS and if bush gets his death tax repeal bill passed then it never will be taxed at all
  11. Aug 24, 2003 #10
    Remember, the majority of Americans make less than $100,000 a year Those are the people who Clinton cut taxes to. Bush lies about his tax cut, by saying things like '90 million Americans will get an average tax cut of $1000', when what he means is 'If you average the $40,000 tax cut I'm getting with the $50 tax cut most of you get, it averages out to be $1000'

    And, remember the good old days when the media screamed bloody murder about things the president wasn't guilty of, instead of now, where they ignore the things the president IS guilty of?
  12. Aug 25, 2003 #11
    Zero there is no point in arguing with you, for to you, anything Bush says is a lie therefore putting his supporters at a disadvantage in your eyes, and you have ignored logical arguments against Bill Clinton several times and whenever someone posts something against you or something that you dislike, if you are against it enough you have locked the topic or edited the post so really, what is the point in arguing with you?
  13. Aug 26, 2003 #12
    Nope, I don't lock things that disagree, if they are presented in a reasonable fashion. Posting against me personally is against PF guidelines(you should actually read them before agreeing to them, everybody). If you want to point out reasonable problems with Clinton, feel free. Just remember that it is easy to pick on Bush, because he actually lies about taxes, national security, energy policy, Iraq, etc. Clinton lied about his personal life, which is none of our business.
  14. Aug 26, 2003 #13
    All Map, No Road was locked. The third to last post was you telling Russ to leave and me to stay on topic while I was really explaining what was going on. The second to last post was made by Scwartz who said something you cant even deny agreeing with, you have similar words in some of your own posts. And then after that you said "And on that note, we're through" and locked the topic. And there is also "If Bush Knowingly lied about WMD's should he go to Jail?" You asked a question in that topic:
    and I responded saying

  15. Aug 26, 2003 #14
    See, again, I need to tell you to stay on topic...talk about Clinton, bub.

    Or Bush, for that matter...I love your defense of him: 'well, if it came from Democrats, I don't want to hear it, because tehy want him out'. Guess what? That doesn't make the charges against him false. On the other hand, Clinton was confronted by lie after lie from Republicans for 10 years, for the SOLE reason of destroying a successful president. Him being a Democrat wasn't enough to generate that kind of hate, what really irked is that his policies worked.
  16. Aug 26, 2003 #15
    Which is different from you not trusting anything a republican says?

    Oy vay, once again you ignore what I said. You obviously did mis use your mentor powers by locking those topics with no sufficient reason, a blind person could see that. And Bill Clinton wasnt that great. His wife that he cheated on was the one that really ran the administration, they used his face for the media because they were afraid of what would happen if they used hers
  17. Aug 26, 2003 #16
    See, you are about to have your posts edited...pay attention, I have given you two warnings. I also mentioned the guidelines, which allows me to edit or delete, and to lock. Now, for the last time, stay on topic.

    And your criticism of Clinton, widely recognised as a brilliant politician, is that Hillary ran things? Oh, and an insult to her looks...what is the right-wing need to replace reasoned debate with personal insult? Whatever personal complaints, Clinton's policies worked, as I said, and I don't care if the family cat whispered them in his ear at night.
  18. Aug 26, 2003 #17
    Zero, I live in New York, have you really seen her? *shudder*
    Hilary did do a lot of things Bill wasnt that great. And "for the last time" they were more his policies than his wife's.

    Go ahead edit my posts see if I care. Everyone will know you edited them in your own way twisting them into your weird fashion.
  19. Aug 26, 2003 #18
    Hmmm...and somehow her looks matter? Why do you keep bringing that up? Maybe because that is the only sort of complaint that can be made against the Clintons: shallow personal attacks.
  20. Aug 26, 2003 #19
    Keep bring it up? Maybe because you brought it up here:

    so I brought it up again. Do you have a problem with everything I post?
    Fine if you want a real attack how about they are politically blind morons that only do what the public want and won't take a step up to do something that is actually good for the nation or the world.
  21. Aug 26, 2003 #20
    Well, you made a comment on topic...care to support that claim? "They are morons" isn't much more convincing than "She is ugly", you know?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook