"The rich get out of paying taxes anyway" -Bush

[onebigbadwulf]

anyone have a transcript or news article based on that statement?

Link please!!

My democrat friend says he NEVER heard it! Talk a bout a lazy media!

[mopinko]

1. so lets tax them

50%. that's what the common wisdom always was. whatever the top tax rate was, NOBODY paid it.

[brainshrub]

2. When did Bush say this?

[Poisonskin_com]

3. no shit.

I want to fucking HEAR this not Read about it.

[sandnsea]

4. Here

He said it in Portland too. Heard him with my own two little ears. They hire accountants and such and "Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes," He's also saying any "successful" business owner has an income of more than $200,000 and will be hurt by Kerry's tax plan. That isn't true either, 97% of women owned businesses have receipts of less than $200,000. The average business owner's income is $40,000. Lie, lie, lie.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=659

[CaTeacher]

9. I am looking at the figures for

businesses--(one of my relatives is a tax attorney--with an LLM in tax law) and the average (of all businesses) is indeed in the neighborhood of $40,000.

The way that * can get away with using the figure of $200,000 is because he was talking about successful business owners--NOT all business owners. It is a great way to manipulate the data--there is a HUGE difference between the AVERAGE business owner-and the successful business owner (check the definitions--they are not the same thing).

* is using data for successful business owners.

The reason that the simple mathematical average is not a very good number to use in this case, is because most businesses fail within a few years of their conception. For the ones that last, the owners tend to accumulated much more than 200,000. * was using data for business that have been in business for 5 years or more--these business are the ones that have proven themselves to be successful.

Thus the "losers" have been omitted from the analysis. The $40,000 is including all the ones going into the red--the ones that will be gone in a few years. Because every loser will significantly lower the average.

Think about being a student--1 F can dramatically lower a GPA. If we compare the average GPA of all 7th graders--the average is approximately a C- (less than a 2.0). But if I am a college recruiter--and I am only interested in the students who are qualified to attend the local state university--I will ask the school guidance counselor--what is the average GPA of the SUCCESSFUL students (top 12%) that number will typically be about a 3.65. As you can see, there is a huge difference.

[sandnsea]

19. Most are failures then

I think that's a false analagy. If you use the $200,000 figure, then 98% of Americans are failures because 98% of Americans earn less than $200,000 a year. Small business owners are my clients. Very few earn anything approaching $200,000 a year and all of them have run successful small businesses for years and years.

Basically, it's a bullshit way to make people think there's lots of people making over $200,000 a year and that those who don't should feel guilty for thinking that the wealthy should carry a higher tax burden.

[CaTeacher]

20. No--I am not saying that those who make

less than 200,000 are failures. (where in the world did you get that?)It is a completely false allegation to say that I was trying to say that lots of people make more than $200,000 as well. All I am trying to explain is that an "average" is an inappropriate way to look at this data and I tried to explain why using an "average" is inappropriate.

I am saying that when you take a straight "average" of a set of numbers, that the numbers that are outliers will have a great effect on the average (please read the example on student grades very carefully--I have used this example to successfully teach these simple statistical concepts to many young children--let's say that a student brought home an A in PE and an F in statistics--Do you think that their parents would say--oh--she has a C average--we are happy? Sometimes a straight average just doesn't cut it.).

I will reiterate--hopefully it will be clearer this time:

Assume that I am comparing several businesses--which are all "successful" in that they have been functioning for several years and they are bringing in a profit. Let's assume that the profit from these successful businesses ranges from 30,000 to 3 million per year. The average income for a successful business may very well be several hundred thousand dollars per year--because the outliers at the high ends will skew the data in that direction. You could have many many businesses earning 30K,40K,50K,60K--that are successful businesses and only one or two that brought in over a million dollars. But--the data at the high end is going to skew the numbers to be artificially high if you take a simple average--even though only a handful of the businesses in your sample make this high amount. (An average of 200,000 doesn't necessarily mean that even a single business in the sample actually made that exact amount.)

Using an average is simply not a good statistical model in this case. There is too much variability (deviation) in the data and the outliers will have a huge impact on the average--and thus an average is not an accurate representation of what an average business earns. (A more appropriate statistic would be the MEDIAN)

When you include the failures (bankruptcies etc) all you are accomplishing is effectively skewing the data in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately, it is a harsh reality that the majority of personal businesses fail within a few years. So--if instead of only using the data from profitable business in our calculations (as * does in his rosy calculations)--now we include the businesses that are on the margin--and the ones that actually failed this year. If you include in your average a few businesses that failed with significant debt--you will dramatically skew the data in the other direction--and effectively make the average profit appear very low.

Try averaging just 2 businesses--for example one was -500,000 in debt and the other had 500,000 in profit! You would say--oh the average business makes ZERO dollars! Well that is not very accurate!

My point is simply that using an average is not an appropriate way to look at this data. When you throw out the failures--the high numbers will skew the average high--and when you put in the numbers for the huge failures--it brings the average down significantly.

For this data, it would be more appropriate to look at the MEDIAN of the data. Using a simple average is an inappropriate way to analyze this type of data.

[RapidCreek]

21. That would be an interesting question to pose Heir Busch in a

debate after he remarks on the stellar shape of the economy and job market.

"Mr. Bush....in light of your claims concerning job growth and the burgeoning economy, please give us the median income of the entire US citizenry between the ages of 18 and 65 including those not only receiving unemployment insurance but those whose unemployment insurance has run out. Give us a round idea of what you believe this sum to have been in 1998 followed with that of today".

After he states that he hasn't got that information immediately available supply it for him and ask for an explaination.

http://www.rasmus.is/uk/t/M/st21k02.htm (What Median Is and how to figure it)

http://www.cbpp.org/9-26-03pov.htm (Median income not including those unemployed) NOTE: THIS IS REAL GOOD STUFF....CHECK IT OUT.

RC

[CaTeacher]

22. hee hee hee

I did check it out--and I like it!! I like it a LOT!!

[sandnsea]

24. Your words

"* is using data for successful business owners."

My $40,000 number came from the NSBA, their average membership income is $40,000. Certainly not all businesses are successful. Not all people keep their jobs either. But you don't remove the people who might lose their jobs when doing wage averaging. You don't count people who are mowing lawns this year as gainfully employed for employment statistics, then remove them from the statistics for business purposes. It's not right.

I understand what you're saying, but with such a small percentage of businesses getting to the $200,000 point in the first place, there's no way it's a fair statement to say anybody who isn't making that is a failure. No matter how you figure the statistics. That's what Bush said.

[CaTeacher]

26. As I have tried to explain repeatedly

"successful" mean that he is leaving out all of the ones that failed.

The ones that went BANKRUPT in the first 5 years.

When you include the ones that went bankrupt (which is quite a few--most fail--and most fail in the first few years) it skews the average of ALL down to $40,000. But if you ONLY include the ones that have stayed in business for more than years (and yes--these are properly DEFINED as successful businesses) even if they only were in the black $10 last year--then you skew the data high.

Successful means we only look at the ones that have proven they have succeeded.

Neither your numbers NOR his numbers are the most accurate way of looking at this. If you read in this field (things like Forbes, Money Magazine, Personal Investing) you will have a much better understanding of both how the definitions and the statistics are used.

[CaTeacher]

27. One more example--using students.

At some colleges as many as 20% of the students flunk out their first year. However, the students that make it through the entire 4 years must have at least a C average.

If I take the GPA of the entire student body it may be a D-. But if I only look at upperclassman (the successful students--in other words--those who have a history of success--they have conquered the transition to college and have proven themselves). The average GPA of the successful students (upperclassman) will likely be around a B-. That is because I have dropped out all the "losers" the people who did not succeed.

Now you could come back and say--well--I got a C in chemistry and I am still successful! But--that really has nothing to do with it at all. Because we are comparing the averages of POPULATIONS of students--and of course some will be above and some will be below. With students it is actually more fair to use averages--because we have found they will typically have a NORMAL distribution. With earnings it is completely invalid to use an average because their are outliers that are so far from the norm--that they skew the average drastically.

The average American makes 33K per year. Please average his salary with that of Ross Perot's and tell me what number you get. You can really see how the outliers skew the data!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. they're able to dodge

Remarks by Bush

>>
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 13, 2004

....
I'll give you one other thought. Let me just leave you with one other thought about taxing the rich. You know how that works. A lot of the rich are able to get accountants, so they don't -- they're able to dodge. You've seen it before. We're going to tax the rich, and then they figure out how not to get taxed. So guess who ends up paying? You do. And we're not going to let him do it to us. We're not going to let him wreck that economy by running up our taxes. (Applause.)
....
<<

[onebigbadwulf]

7. Thanks!

And to you other people- HOW can you not have heard this?! Left wing radio played it for days!

[Union Thug]

11. Well, throw the tax dodging...

...worthless parasites in PRISON then. Geezus, they'll throw some dark skinned guy in prison for years for stealing a few video tapes, but white collar criminals just keep sucking up the gravy, apparently given tacit approval by george w.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25. Is that any way to treat my mom?

She has money in munis. Further, at my suggestion, she had bought into a muni bond fund. I should have taken my own advice, as it has outperformed stocks over the last year or so.

You want munis to be triple-tax-free; it's a good policy. Why is that?

If it weren't for municipal bonds, cities and counties wouldn't be able to construct any libraries, schools, bicycle trails, or park facilities. My mom is among those financing those things, and I'm not the least bit bothered. Those things cost money, and you need to borrow it from the people who have it. You're going to have to make the bonds attractive to those with the money. Fail to do that, and say bye-bye to new schools and libraries. Those are the facts.

Muni bonds: they're a good thing.

[CaTeacher]

6. In this case, what * said was true.

People who don't believe it just are in major denial.

Take for example, the case of billionaire Ross Perot--he is a perfect example of how the super-affluent stay super-affluent and even enhance their levels of wealth year after year. Forbes estimated that Mr. Perot's net worth was $2.4 billion (see Randall Lane, "What's Ross Perot Really Worth," Forbes, October 19, 1992, p.72).

A tax reform group headquartered in Washington D.C., estimated that Perot's annual realized income in 1995 was approximately $230 million. Thus, he realized the equivalent of 9.6 percent of his wealth but paid only $19.5 million in tax, or 8.5 percent of his income (see "How Perot Caps His Rising Taxes at Only 8.5%," Money, January 1994, p.18). Compare this with the average figure of 31.6% paid by the average person (who cannot afford not to hire a bunch of clever tax attorneys).

How does Mr. Perot end up paying such a small percentage of his income in tax? According to a newspaper report:

"Perot...minimizes his tax bill by investing heavily in tax-free municipals, tax-sheltered real estate, and stocks with unrealized gains" (Tom Walker, "Perot's Tax Rate is Lower Than Most, Magazine Says," Atlanta Journal-Constitution,Dec 30, 1993, p.1).

Of particular interest, Perot's tax rate as a percentage of his income--that is, 8.5 % --is lower than that of the average American household. The average household in this country pays $4,248 in federal income tax each year, or the equivalent of 12.9 percent of their annual realized income of $32,823. Perot is super-affluent in terms of accumulated wealth, but he has less than the common man's marginal tax liability!

Even more interesting than the percentage of income paid in taxes is the percentage of wealth paid in taxes. The typical American household has a total net worth, including equity in the home, of $36,623. They pay the equivalent of 11.6 percent of their net worth in income tax. What about Mr. Perot, the billionaire? In one year, it is estimated, he paid the equivalent of only 0.8 percent of his wealth in tax. In terms of income tax paid as a percentage of wealth, the typical household paid 14 and a half times more!!!

[Yupster]

8. The key is

that the super rich are not rich because they make a lot of income. Rather it's because they have a lot of wealth.

In fact, the super rich may have very little actual income that is taxable.

Most is in tax free bonds which is completely free of income tax obligations.

Their wealth can be tied up in land, trusts, art, businesses, etc.

You can raise the tax rate to 90 % and you won't get at this group because they don't make taxable income.

[CaTeacher]

10. There ARE ways to get at this group....

The problem is that they have no chance of ever being proposed, much less championed in Congress.

And that is because nearly all of our Senators and Congressmen are millionaires themselves. (yes--both the Democrats and the Republicans screw the poor people equally. )

I doubt we will ever see a truly fair tax code--and it is because nearly all of the people with the power are the rich and privileged--they have a vested interest in setting it up so that they can protect their wealth.

[dorktv]

12. If one wants a better congress, help those of us who are running

for Congress. And if one can, get everyone one can to join in. I tell people complaining: You want a better congress? Well you have to work for it. Nothing in life is free.

[CaTeacher]

13. you are running for Congress?

I did not know that a DUer was running--I will follow your link--and of course I would love to do anything that I can to help a fellow DUer! Maybe we would have some HOPE if we could get a few DUer's into office!

Best of luck!

[dorktv]

15. Yep, running against a guy named Ron in my primary, and if

I win that, a guy named J. D. Hayworth. You might be familiar with him. And if you can afford it, a little donation would be cool. :) Otherwise, spreading the word about me would help a lot too.

[CaTeacher]

16. I will do what I can.

I am also going to call around--I have several friends in Arizona--maybe some of them would be interested in helping too.

[dorktv]

17. Thanks!

I love running, voters have taught me so much. And I really want to get to Washington to address their concerns.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Fine. Then let's triple 'em; it shouldn't hurt 'em a bit.

What a megaprick. Don't mess with the rich, you peons; you don't know what you're doing. They're sacred.

[Guaranteed]

18. I like this response: Then why the tax cuts? nt

[Disturbed]

23. The USA is a Plutocracy.

Do some research and see if you agree with that view.

[Poiuyt]

28. Has anyone heard any mention of this on TV?

I've only read it. Apparently it is part of Bush's standard stump speech. It seems like the type of story that Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart would have a field day with.

[Nashyra]

29. You won't find it because he was being honest

I have always maintained that most, most people in the over $200,000.00 bracket are either lazy or have a piss poor accountant. Their are legitimate tax deductions, but you have to work at more or less setting up your own business.

[Poiuyt]

30. I know he was being honest

but it still has a "Let them eat cake" type feeling to it.

[realFedUp]

31. This soundbite would be a powerful voice-over

on an ad.
Especially if you run simple numbers showing
that the middle-class is paying more for
everything, including very wealthy tax give-aways.

[Disturbed]

32. The Dems are just as responsible for the tax situation.

Read "The People's History of United States" by Howard Zinn.

This book will give you a perspective about Amerika that may change your view about a lot of events and provide you with an alternate reality of Amerika.

[realFedUp]

33. I have the book

What chapter?