T Nation

Another Undeserved Tax Cut!

Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill
$136 billion measure assailed for catering to special interests

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:44 p.m. ET Oct. 22, 2004

WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.

But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.

There was no ceremony for the bill-signing. White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced it on Air Force One as Bush flew to a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania. Bush mentioned the new tax law at the beginning of a health care event in Canton, Ohio.

?I signed a bill that?s going to help our manufacturers ? that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America,? Bush said. ?That will help keep jobs here.?

The handling of the corporate tax bill was in contrast to Bush?s action on Oct. 4 when he sat before television cameras on a stage in Des Moines, Iowa, to sign three tax-cut breaks popular with middle-class voters and reviving other tax incentives for businesses.

Bush?s campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry, missed the vote on the corporate tax breaks. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said there were many important things in the bill but that ?George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas. In his first budget, John Kerry will call for the repeal of all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill.?

The Joint Tax Committee said the overall bill would not increase the deficit because the $136 billion in tax cuts over the next decade were balanced by $136 billion in tax increases.

Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.

Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed.

“Our concern is they?ve used smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks to make the legislation look much smaller than it is,” he said.

He also called it a giant step backward for efforts to simplify the tax code.

The original purpose of the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization.

Repeal of the tax break was needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than 1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to Europe.

The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America?s largest corporations.

The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by tobacco farmers. A Senate provision that would have coupled this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration was dropped by the conference committee that resolved differences between the two chambers.

The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track owners.

The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering, construction and architectural firms and large farming operations.

The bill also includes a $5 billion tax break primarily for residents of seven states that have no income tax. The measure allows taxpayers to take a deduction for sales tax instead.

MSNBC.com’s Martin Wolk contributed to this story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

Roy, what’s up man? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands lately…:slight_smile:

Yep, undeserved. You would actually think it was their money or something like that.

Nope, it is the peoples republic of Amerika’s money.

Seriously, I thought people were complaining about the economy. This will boost the economy, and create more jobs.

Although I keep hearing from the left that taxing businesses will create jobs, which I don’t understand. If a company has less money, how can they afford to hire more people?

I may not be rich, (Like Roy,) but I want the rich to get richer. If people understand economics they will know why. More money in their hands means more money invested. I realize many of you think that the rich only spend all their money, but then they are not rich. But then again, that would also be good for the economy.

Regardless more money invested, or spent, means more money in the economy, which means more jobs.

Tax cuts have a positive effect on the economy. In the long run this actually can result in more taxes taken in.

The Mage wrote:

“I want the rich to get richer. If people understand economics they will know why. More money in their hands means more money invested.”

[…]

“Regardless more money invested, or spent, means more money in the economy, which means more jobs.”

Oh really? Nice job. Then why give tax cuts to the rich if it’s ‘regardless’ more money spent or invested? Give them to the middle and lower classes and they’ll spend more money too, benefitting the economy and becoming customers of big and small bussinesses alike. How are the bussinesses supposed to hire new employees if they’re taxed higher? BY HAVING MORE DAMN CUSTOMERS! The less people are given tax cuts(the 1% of the richest in America) the least likely it is that they’ll spend in proportion to benefit the entire nation. In fact it’s completely unlikely. However if you give tax cuts to the majority of people then their spending will spread equally throughout the whole country, helping bussinesses all over instead of another industry giant who’s stock some rich asshole decides to invest into or buy stock from.

Instead, our chimp of a president(I actually shouldn’t credit the poor monkey because his decision-making is probably restricted to ‘what to eat?’ and ‘when to take a piss?’) gives the benefits to huge megacorps, richest of the rich and most terribly Nascar stadium owners and farmers. Today I’ll dismiss the subject of “packing all Nascar dads in containers and sending them into the sun” from the conversation. But farmers? Do we need any more farmers? Hell no. The shelves are packed to the top with all sorts of breads. Cheap breads I must add, and for the most part shitty breads which goes without saying. We’ve got a shitload of brands of eggs, milk, meat. Entire isles are devoted to cereals. They have so much sugar that they just don’t know where to stuff it next, just about any damn packaged food has got sugar in the double digits. And that’s only because they reduced the serving sizes to a damn tea spoon so the FDA can tollerate it. Every moron is jumping on the bandwagon. But the fact is that technology has allowed us to support the entire nation and more utilizing less than a quarter of the amount of farms used today and still having a competitive field. These assholes don’t deserve any more benefits then they already have, period.

I own a small business and I will benefit from it!!

fyi- I also employ over 35 unionized workers. Maybe now I can afford to hire a few more or up my 401K contribution to help my current employees and make my company more attractive to new hires.

Nothing personal but it’s just business. This tax cut benefits people who work for a living insteaqd of people who just collect checks for a living from the government.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I own a small business and I will benefit from it!!

fyi- I also employ over 35 unionized workers. Maybe now I can afford to hire a few more or up my 401K contribution to help my current employees and make my company more attractive to new hires.

Nothing personal but it’s just business. This tax cut benefits people who work for a living insteaqd of people who just collect checks for a living from the government.[/quote]

hedo:

Nice try, but nothing will convince the liberals that people who make money than them are not evil.

I guess they still think that a poor person can hire someone for a job…ha ha

w2097,

“Then why give tax cuts to the rich if it’s ‘regardless’ more money spent or invested? Give them to the middle and lower classes and they’ll spend more money too…”

At what point was the tax cut a boon for the rich at the expense of the middle class? Read up, the tax cut was a tax cut for all the ‘classes’. Not only would a tax cut for the rich without a tax cut for everyone else be silly policy, it’d be political suicide.

Every class benefits from a tax cut from both a spending and saving point of view. In short, it’s not an either-or question - put money in the hands of rich, middle, and poor alike, and they’ll all pump velocity into the system.

“Instead, our chimp of a president(I actually shouldn’t credit the poor monkey because his decision-making is probably restricted to ‘what to eat?’ and ‘when to take a piss?’)”

Such insightful observations. Go back to pulling pigtails at the sandbox - the adults are trying to talk.

[quote]w2097 wrote:
The Mage wrote:

Oh really? Nice job. Then why give tax cuts to the rich if it’s ‘regardless’ more money spent or invested? Give them to the middle and lower classes and they’ll spend more money too… [/quote]

This is where I lose all patience with the Left-wing and the just flat out stupidity of the ignorant.

If you give money (tax breaks) to the midlle class, and the poor (who pay no taxes) what you are doing is redistributing wealth. That has never helped any economy, anywhere. Oh, it makes the poor feel fat and lazy but it does not create jobs or help the economy.

The Bush tax cuts gave cuts to those who paid the damn taxes in the first place. We tax the top 2% for 90% of the tax burden. It only stands to reason that they get the benefit.

For those of you shitheads out there that don’t understand the corp. tax breaks - wake the hell up!!! Your left-wing socialist tripe is blinding your ability to think.

hedo wrote:

"I own a small business and I will benefit from it!! "

[…]

“Nothing personal but it’s just business. This tax cut benefits people who work for a living insteaqd of people who just collect checks for a living from the government.”

That’s exactly how the corporate cats think: “What do you mean nobody benefited from it? I benfitted. Nothing personal, it’s just bussiness. After all, the whole population is divided into people who own a company and those who sit around without a job collecting government checks. There’s no in-between.”

thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Read up, the tax cut was a tax cut for all the ‘classes’.”

Please, don’t make me laugh. A tax cut SHOULD be for all classes, but these were almost completely geared towards the richest.

“In short, it’s not an either-or question - put money in the hands of rich, middle, and poor alike”

That would make the tax cut equal or nearly equal for them to benefit ‘alike’ now wouldn’t it?

“If you give money (tax breaks) to the midlle class, and the poor (who pay no taxes) what you are doing is redistributing wealth. That has never helped any economy, anywhere. Oh, it makes the poor feel fat and lazy but it does not create jobs or help the economy.”

I’m not for giving it to the poor, my point is to more or less equalize it. Bush gives huge tax cuts to the wealthiest few, that’s not balance.

rainjack wrote:

“The Bush tax cuts gave cuts to those who paid the damn taxes in the first place. We tax the top 2% for 90% of the tax burden. It only stands to reason that they get the benefit.”

Bullshit. They were rich as hell before the tax cuts. They’re not the ones in need of them as much as the average person.

I know people would twist my word around.

I never said I disagreed with cutting the tax for the middle class or the… (Wait, if your poor, you don’t pay taxes.)

I think the first $50,000 of income, at least, should be tax free. (Based on a family of four.)

Now please don’t put words into my mouth that I didn’t say. Too often people their own assumptions into statements.

I never mentioned the poor, except possibly in the statement about the creation of jobs, and a better economy. Why does mentioning anything that might be good for the rich mean you want bad things for the poor?

Hey, I have an idea, lets help all the people, not just some. Not just this group or that group.

Also why was my entire statement avoided, except for one sentence, used by a person who complained that I took his statement “out of context” in another post when I not only quoted him, but quoted the person he was arguing with to show how I came to my understanding.

Hypocrisy?

Corporate fat cat…hardly. I have a small company. It’s not GE or GM but I certainly aspire to it.

Try owning a small business or shop etc. It’s a real eye opener. Lot’s of hard work and fear.

w2097,

“Please, don’t make me laugh. A tax cut SHOULD be for all classes, but these were almost completely geared towards the richest.”

So show me. Demonstrate how the tax cut screwed the non-rich.

And let me cut you off at the pass - don’t give the usual garbage that the rich got more out of the tax cut. Of course, they did. They pay more in, they get more back, strictly as a mathematical phenomenon.

I want to know how the recent tax cuts were ‘almost completely geard towards the richest’.

“That would make the tax cut equal or nearly equal for them to benefit ‘alike’ now wouldn’t it?”

Tax cuts, or what you take home from the tax cut, can never be equal because - wait for it - incomes will never be equal.

“Bush gives huge tax cuts to the wealthiest few, that’s not balance.”

Ok, so let’s see what the percentage cuts were. You tell me. Did the rich get a higher percentage of their tax take reduced? You keep blathering about unfairness, but you don’t show why.

The cuts were disproportionate, just read any damn fiscal report. Two thirds went to the richest people in the nation and 20% to corporations. These last years were of lowest revenue in many decades, creating huge deficits and weakening the economy.

And now these cuts have to be payed off so either someone’s got to do alot of shopping or someone’s going to get taxed up to their asshole.

Damn, the economy is going to shit and you guys are raising your hands “It benefitted me, it benefitted me!!”. Come on.

[quote]w2097 wrote:
Bullshit. They were rich as hell before the tax cuts. They’re not the ones in need of them as much as the average person.[/quote]

Is being rich the crime here? They don’t NEED the money? It’s their fuckin money!!! Who in the hell are you to tell me, or anyone else, that I don’t need the money that I’ve worked my ass off for?

Do you even have a job? I know you aren’t a business owner. Pathetic.

Ooh of course if I’m not a bussiness owner then what right do I have to tell big 'ol rainjack that he doesn’t need the money. Get off your high horse jackass, nobody gives a shit if you own a business. The economy is at it’s worst and going, while these cuts didn’t spike shit. But ofcourse that wouldn’t trouble you because you’re too busy being happy about your little tax cut.

[quote]w2097 wrote:
Ooh of course if I’m not a bussiness owner then what right do I have to tell big 'ol rainjack that he doesn’t need the money. Get off your high horse jackass, nobody gives a shit if you own a business. The economy is at it’s worst and going, while these cuts didn’t spike shit. But ofcourse that wouldn’t trouble you because you’re too busy being happy about your little tax cut. [/quote]

Wrong there, Sparky. My employees care quite a bit that I have provided them a paycheck in exchange for their services. In fact, so does the gov’t, who would not be collecting taxes from them if they didn’t have a job. A bigger tax cut lowers my liability to the IRS, which in turn creates a better cash flow for my business. This gives me more money to either hire another person (more tax revenue), or buy new computers, upgrade my software, or recarpet the office(spending - It stimulates the economy by giving another business cash with which to do the same thing).

I don’t expect you to understand these economic principles in action - as you don’t seem to understand anything except ‘Rich Bad’ and ‘Poor Good’. It’s not a high horse, sparky - it’s the American Dream.

And yes I am happy - you should try it sometime.

Many proponents of trickle down economics here, it seems. Here’s a very nice, neat article that explains why and how (with graphs and everything) trickle down economics fails at virtually everything it purports to do:

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Many proponents of trickle down economics here, it seems. Here’s a very nice, neat article that explains why and how (with graphs and everything) trickle down economics fails at virtually everything it purports to do:

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html[/quote]

Faireconomy.org’s mission statement:

“United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent, nonpartisan, 501©(3) nonprofit organization. UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.”

Real unbiased group your linking to, there RSU. About those pretty graphs? They say nothing about the source of their data.

You know, I own a business as well, and I too aspire to be something bigger and better and wealthier. But listening to Mage and rainjack you would think that we would be better served in a complete anarchy. Problem then is, who would pay for the roads, schools, airports, hospitals, the military (that you so love). You think this stuff is free?

Right now, I don’t feel any tax relief. I am trying to juggle three separate corporations above water, and I am broke and still taxed to the gills. You are penalized for being a small business owner right and left. You know what though? As a business man who never knows from one month to the next whether or not I am going to survive I have made it for 11 years so far, and created a beautiful family, and learned that my wife meant every word of her oath to me when she stated “whether richer or poorer, for better or for worse” over 12 years ago. How do we do it? We make sacrifices. We live below our means. We don’t have cable, we don’t buy a lot of clothes or things, I have absolutely no credit card debt, and a low house payment on which I have personally done most of the renovations. Some people are meant to be entrepreneurs because they are willing to do live like this. I would be quite a viable contender if I were to enter the job market, but I don’t want that. I want to be the best, and I want to have material wealth, but money isn’t what drives me. It is just going to be a natural side effect of my business being successful. I resent the dis-incentives much more than anything, because clearly those with money have NO FUCKING CLUE how hard it is to start something from nothing. My family sure as hell didn’t have enough to help me out when I was getting started.

So the day I am able to pay myself over 200K I can honestly say that I will be okay paying a higher percentage of my share. I don’t like paying for the taxes, but they are what holds together this country right now. Like I said, I pay my fair share. I don’t like it, but I do it. I also like state parks, and sidewalks. And the money to build those streets… Guess what ? It needs more peole to work too? Hm… More jobs, more people having to pay tax.

I can understand not liking to see how they spend your tax money with the way they waste it, but that’s another thread. But why did the president feel it necessary to do it so unceremoniously? WHy not parade this one out like the rest of them?

[quote]w2097 wrote:
The cuts were disproportionate, just read any damn fiscal report. Two thirds went to the richest people in the nation and 20% to corporations. These last years were of lowest revenue in many decades, creating huge deficits and weakening the economy.

And now these cuts have to be payed off so either someone’s got to do alot of shopping or someone’s going to get taxed up to their asshole.

Damn, the economy is going to shit and you guys are raising your hands “It benefitted me, it benefitted me!!”. Come on.[/quote]

I’d like to talk about the 1st paragraph. I am sick of hearing that “Bush took a $5.6 billion surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in US history”. first of all, if you account for inflation, this isn’t the largest deficit in US history. 2nd, the $5.6 surplus never existed; it was a projection of the government, based on revenue over the next 10 years… which included the HUNDREDS of internet companies, which we all know contributed jack shit to the economy. the real number was somewhere closer to $3 trillion; things beyond bush’s control (9-11) and things which had been going on for years and suddenly exploded (coporate fraud scandals) further ate away that surplus that never existed. bush then “spent” the remaining surplus on a tax cut, but is it really spending to return money to those who were taxed?? Yes we are spending a lot now due to the dual wars (won’t argue the necessity of those at this point), and this is deficit spending, but it wasn’t from a 5.6 trillion surplus.

now to what you actually said, haha…

lowest revenue in many decades is not surprising, considering almost all of the 80s and 90s was an economic boom (some of which was imagined, the internet companies). Furthermore, perhaps the high price of oil has more to do with economic plight than the tax cuts (again, not going to mix foreign with domestic policy. i am arguing that perhaps the wars which have caused oil to skyrocket to nearly all-time highs is more of a reason for the sluggish economy)