Full Version: Bush "Tax Cuts" and the Economy
Bush supporters always like to remind us how he lowered our taxes and actually sent us tax rebate checks. Everybody can support getting a bigger tax refund, right? Well, this subject has always ticked me off, because I didn’t get a tax rebate check, and I certainly did not get a bigger tax refund. In fact, since I had to pay $100 for tax year 2003, I actually got $3000 LESS than the previous year. Let me explain: I was an independent contractor for 3 years, so I paid quarterly taxes. This made me ineligible for Bush’s “largesse” in the form of a tax rebate check. I’m sure I was not the only self-employed (or unemployed, for that matter) person in the country not to receive one, either. I was unemployed for nearly HALF of 2003, and I still ended up paying $100 as opposed to getting a refund as I did the previous year as an IC. Something about that just does NOT compute.
Not to mention…does a $300 (approx.) rebate check really make that big a difference in an individual/family budget?
It seems that Bush’s primary attacks against Kerry have to do with accusing him of “raising taxes” and how he’s such a good guy and lowered our taxes.
Well, what exactly has resulted from Bush’s “tax cuts”? In California:
QUOTE
Costs for in-state students at the University of California (at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz) in 2003-04 increased by 30% or an average of $1,254.70 per student from $4,182.30 to $5,437. Tuition and fees at the 23 California State University campuses in 2003-04 increased by 30% or an average of $588 per student from $1,956 to $2,544.
An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 people in FY 2004 lost health coverage when barriers for low-income parents to enroll in Medicaid were created and eligibility for transitional Medicaid to temporarily cover parents leaving welfare for work was reduced.
The Bush Administration has shortchanged first responders – emergency personnel, firefighters, and police officers – in the state of California by $110.1 million.
On January 1, 2002, the minimum sales tax (state/local combined) increased by 0.25%.
Fees for state parks increased in early 2003 and are set to increase again beginning July 1, 2004. In some cases, park fees will more than double. Annual passes will go from the current charge of $67 to $125. Bush Tax-go here to see the effect in your state
An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 people in FY 2004 lost health coverage when barriers for low-income parents to enroll in Medicaid were created and eligibility for transitional Medicaid to temporarily cover parents leaving welfare for work was reduced.
The Bush Administration has shortchanged first responders – emergency personnel, firefighters, and police officers – in the state of California by $110.1 million.
On January 1, 2002, the minimum sales tax (state/local combined) increased by 0.25%.
Fees for state parks increased in early 2003 and are set to increase again beginning July 1, 2004. In some cases, park fees will more than double. Annual passes will go from the current charge of $67 to $125. Bush Tax-go here to see the effect in your state
QUOTE
By state, the average net burden of Bush’s policies ranges from a high of $40,133 per family of four in Maryland to a low of $34,525 in Wyoming.
In total dollars, California is the biggest loser from Bush’s policies, with a net cost over six years of $342.5 billion. Citizens for Tax Justice
In total dollars, California is the biggest loser from Bush’s policies, with a net cost over six years of $342.5 billion. Citizens for Tax Justice
From the Brookings Institute:
QUOTE
Our findings suggest that EGTRRA [Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001] will reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes more regressive, increase tax complexity, and prove fiscally unsustainable. Source
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
edited to fix quote
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
During the early stages of a recession, when prices are falling, tax cuts do indeed stimulate the economy. However, as the economy picks up and so does inflation, tax cuts have minimal effect on the economy unless they continue to also increase due to inflation, which they don't.
However... decreasing federal revenues without subsequent decreases in federal spending are terrible for the long-term health of our economy. Deficits -- like credit card bills -- must be eventually paid. Interest payments on the debt consume money that could be better spent elsewhere or returned to the citizens.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Somewhat. Some people still believe in Santa Claus and that "deficits don't matter". It's not reality -- like the notion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- but lots of people believe it nonetheless. Because of that "I can have cake for breakfast and not worry about my weight" mentality, politicians talk about tax cuts in specifics and spending cuts in generalities, thus making it easier to cut taxes, but harder to cut spending. It's dishonest and we're getting what we're asking for by not demanding better answers from our politicians.
Also, as you pointed out, tax cuts at the federal level have usually translated into tax increases at the local level, which doesn't really help your personal situation, since your local government has to tax you at a higher rate in order to fulfill the same obligations that the federal government could provide by taxing more people at a lower rate. It seems "fairer", since it moves the problems closer to home, but it's just more expensive for those places with more problems.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Not a bit. The difference in my taxes between 2000 and 2003 was $100 per month, which isn't enough to cover the increases in living costs. The only tax change that might someday affect me is the cap gains decrease, because I now own assets that I might someday sell.
But the change shortchanged the government of needed revenue in this time of "war", so I can't imagine why we haven't had these cuts repealed so that all of us can share in this burden of "war".
During the early stages of a recession, when prices are falling, tax cuts do indeed stimulate the economy. However, as the economy picks up and so does inflation, tax cuts have minimal effect on the economy unless they continue to also increase due to inflation, which they don't.
However... decreasing federal revenues without subsequent decreases in federal spending are terrible for the long-term health of our economy. Deficits -- like credit card bills -- must be eventually paid. Interest payments on the debt consume money that could be better spent elsewhere or returned to the citizens.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Somewhat. Some people still believe in Santa Claus and that "deficits don't matter". It's not reality -- like the notion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- but lots of people believe it nonetheless. Because of that "I can have cake for breakfast and not worry about my weight" mentality, politicians talk about tax cuts in specifics and spending cuts in generalities, thus making it easier to cut taxes, but harder to cut spending. It's dishonest and we're getting what we're asking for by not demanding better answers from our politicians.
Also, as you pointed out, tax cuts at the federal level have usually translated into tax increases at the local level, which doesn't really help your personal situation, since your local government has to tax you at a higher rate in order to fulfill the same obligations that the federal government could provide by taxing more people at a lower rate. It seems "fairer", since it moves the problems closer to home, but it's just more expensive for those places with more problems.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Not a bit. The difference in my taxes between 2000 and 2003 was $100 per month, which isn't enough to cover the increases in living costs. The only tax change that might someday affect me is the cap gains decrease, because I now own assets that I might someday sell.
But the change shortchanged the government of needed revenue in this time of "war", so I can't imagine why we haven't had these cuts repealed so that all of us can share in this burden of "war".
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
I would say that the tax cuts have had negligible effect on our current economy, and have a good potential to hurt our future economy.
Lets look at a few factors here. First, here is a historical measurement of the National Debt as a percentage of GDP: chart. As you can see the Presidents who typically "cut" taxes are also the ones that caused the largest increases in the national debt.
The measure I consider the most important when looking at how the economy is doing isn't the stock market, housing starts, etc -- it is jobs. Here is a graph showing the number of jobs during the Bush administration's reign. As you can see, things are improving a little bit, but nowhere near what the administration predicted.
Put another way, this graph shows the predicted impacts of the two major tax cuts Bush doled out on jobs. As you can clearly see, neither of them came anywhere close to the mark.
So if these tax cuts didn't help us out long term and they didn't increase jobs -- what exactly did they do?
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
To be honest I would actually like to see taxes increased. If we really are going to be dedicating lots of money to homeland security, building our military and fighting the war on terror that money has to come from somewhere. We either need more taxes or we need to cut programs. Deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible, especially at the level Bush has done it.
In general though, I think taxes cuts are purely a political tool -- throwing bread to the masses in the colliseum. People like the idea of getting money back, even if it is completely insignificant. So you got $300 back, how is that significant? Sure you wouldn't turn it down, neither would I -- but it is little more than a bribe.
I would certainly never vote for a president just because he said he would cut our taxes, unless we just had money sitting around that we didn't know what to do with.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
The effect was completely insignificant for me. My taxes were primarily reduced by deductions from a cross country move and student expenses for my wife -- Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it. If you take those two things out I paid about what I have always paid. I got a little bit of money back, but I just had to use it to pay the significant amount of money I owed California (for not living in the state all year).
I would say that the tax cuts have had negligible effect on our current economy, and have a good potential to hurt our future economy.
Lets look at a few factors here. First, here is a historical measurement of the National Debt as a percentage of GDP: chart. As you can see the Presidents who typically "cut" taxes are also the ones that caused the largest increases in the national debt.
The measure I consider the most important when looking at how the economy is doing isn't the stock market, housing starts, etc -- it is jobs. Here is a graph showing the number of jobs during the Bush administration's reign. As you can see, things are improving a little bit, but nowhere near what the administration predicted.
Put another way, this graph shows the predicted impacts of the two major tax cuts Bush doled out on jobs. As you can clearly see, neither of them came anywhere close to the mark.
So if these tax cuts didn't help us out long term and they didn't increase jobs -- what exactly did they do?
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
To be honest I would actually like to see taxes increased. If we really are going to be dedicating lots of money to homeland security, building our military and fighting the war on terror that money has to come from somewhere. We either need more taxes or we need to cut programs. Deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible, especially at the level Bush has done it.
In general though, I think taxes cuts are purely a political tool -- throwing bread to the masses in the colliseum. People like the idea of getting money back, even if it is completely insignificant. So you got $300 back, how is that significant? Sure you wouldn't turn it down, neither would I -- but it is little more than a bribe.
I would certainly never vote for a president just because he said he would cut our taxes, unless we just had money sitting around that we didn't know what to do with.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
The effect was completely insignificant for me. My taxes were primarily reduced by deductions from a cross country move and student expenses for my wife -- Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it. If you take those two things out I paid about what I have always paid. I got a little bit of money back, but I just had to use it to pay the significant amount of money I owed California (for not living in the state all year).
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
Tax cuts is a means to stimulate the economy, but so is lowering interest rate. Considering that our national debt is becoming one of the major threats to our economy I would say that the "tax cuts" has hurt the economy. It might have helped to spark this latest economic recovery, but all things considered I am leaning towards hurt. The federal government should do everything in their power to balance the budget.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Tax increases across the board would kill a 2004 presidential campaign. If you are only talking about tax increases for the richest 1%, then it should only have a marginal effect, but looking at the last election, a marginal effect means win or lose. The overall state of the economy, especially jobs will be very important.
And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Personally I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, both the lowering of the tax brackets, marriage penalty (adjusted std. deduction), and the increase in child credit.
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue. When the .com boom was in effect, state income was soring, but it is just an incredible incompetent state government that would actually start depending on this added income. It is the job of the state government to make sure that their budgets are sustainable, and they failed.
BTW, a tax refund at the end of the year has nothing to do with a tax cut or not. You have to look at the total tax paid. The tax refund is only the difference between what was paid in and what should have been paid.
Tax cuts is a means to stimulate the economy, but so is lowering interest rate. Considering that our national debt is becoming one of the major threats to our economy I would say that the "tax cuts" has hurt the economy. It might have helped to spark this latest economic recovery, but all things considered I am leaning towards hurt. The federal government should do everything in their power to balance the budget.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Tax increases across the board would kill a 2004 presidential campaign. If you are only talking about tax increases for the richest 1%, then it should only have a marginal effect, but looking at the last election, a marginal effect means win or lose. The overall state of the economy, especially jobs will be very important.
And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Personally I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, both the lowering of the tax brackets, marriage penalty (adjusted std. deduction), and the increase in child credit.
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue. When the .com boom was in effect, state income was soring, but it is just an incredible incompetent state government that would actually start depending on this added income. It is the job of the state government to make sure that their budgets are sustainable, and they failed.
BTW, a tax refund at the end of the year has nothing to do with a tax cut or not. You have to look at the total tax paid. The tax refund is only the difference between what was paid in and what should have been paid.
QUOTE(Veb @ Jul 14 2004, 11:34 AM)
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
Tax cuts is a means to stimulate the economy, but so is lowering interest rate. Considering that our national debt is becoming one of the major threats to our economy I would say that the "tax cuts" has hurt the economy. It might have helped to spark this latest economic recovery, but all things considered I am leaning towards hurt. The federal government should do everything in their power to balance the budget.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Tax increases across the board would kill a 2004 presidential campaign. If you are only talking about tax increases for the richest 1%, then it should only have a marginal effect, but looking at the last election, a marginal effect means win or lose. The overall state of the economy, especially jobs will be very important.
And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Personally I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, both the lowering of the tax brackets, marriage penalty (adjusted std. deduction), and the increase in child credit.
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue. When the .com boom was in effect, state income was soring, but it is just an incredible incompetent state government that would actually start depending on this added income. It is the job of the state government to make sure that their budgets are sustainable, and they failed.
BTW, a tax refund at the end of the year has nothing to do with a tax cut or not. You have to look at the total tax paid. The tax refund is only the difference between what was paid in and what should have been paid.
Tax cuts is a means to stimulate the economy, but so is lowering interest rate. Considering that our national debt is becoming one of the major threats to our economy I would say that the "tax cuts" has hurt the economy. It might have helped to spark this latest economic recovery, but all things considered I am leaning towards hurt. The federal government should do everything in their power to balance the budget.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
Tax increases across the board would kill a 2004 presidential campaign. If you are only talking about tax increases for the richest 1%, then it should only have a marginal effect, but looking at the last election, a marginal effect means win or lose. The overall state of the economy, especially jobs will be very important.
And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
Personally I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, both the lowering of the tax brackets, marriage penalty (adjusted std. deduction), and the increase in child credit.
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue. When the .com boom was in effect, state income was soring, but it is just an incredible incompetent state government that would actually start depending on this added income. It is the job of the state government to make sure that their budgets are sustainable, and they failed.
BTW, a tax refund at the end of the year has nothing to do with a tax cut or not. You have to look at the total tax paid. The tax refund is only the difference between what was paid in and what should have been paid.
QUOTE
BTW, a tax refund at the end of the year has nothing to do with a tax cut or not. You have to look at the total tax paid. The tax refund is only the difference between what was paid in and what should have been paid.
What I find very strange is how people who get more in a refund, than they paid in, complain about paying taxes. If you get more back then was paid in, you didn't pay taxes. It is more like a saving account without interest. It's when you have paid in, get no refund, or have to pay additional that one is paying taxes.
At least that is my take on it.
Some believe because payroll taxes are deducted from their checks they are paying taxes. Temporally maybe, but when you receive all that back and then some, you aren't paying taxes.
QUOTE
It's when you have paid in, get no refund, or have to pay additional that one is paying taxes.
Not sure if I agree with this one.
A person that pays $10,000 in taxes in a given year, then gets a $1000 refund at the end of the year is still paying $9,000 in taxes.
The amout deducted from your paycheck is just an estimate that you can control yourself. At the end of the year when you turn in your tax forms you calculate the exact tax that you should pay, this may or may not match the taxes withdrawn from your paycheck. Sometimes it is lower, sometimes it is higher.
QUOTE(Veb)
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue.
While I won’t deny that California has problems unrelated to the Bush Tax, you can’t deny that Bush’s “tax cuts” weren’t a factor in those problems becoming that much worse. And since California is only one ~30 states that are projecting deficits for Fiscal Year 2005 as a result of the Bush “tax cuts”, don’t miss seeing the forest for the trees.
QUOTE
“A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.” Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That’s the Bush Tax. Source(For details, see the link below to the CBPP report. )
QUOTE
Given the magnitude of the deficits, states likely will enact further cuts to basic services such as health care and education and/or impose new tax burdens particularly on low- and middle-income families (who have borne the majority of the tax increases so far). Source:CBPP
Emphasis mine. I'm pretty sure that's you and me, folks.
QUOTE(Lethalletha)
What I find very strange is how people who get more in a refund, than they paid in, complain about paying taxes. If you get more back then was paid in, you didn't pay taxes.
Wow, I want the name of your tax preparer!
I paid in approx. $16,000 and got $3,000 back. How does that equate to “paying no taxes”???Edited to add: Oh, now this is just insidious!!!
QUOTE
Spurred by a White House meeting on July 7, Republican leaders in Congress are reportedly planning to use an unusual strategy to extend certain tax cuts without paying for them. The strategy is to adopt these policies by reviving a moribund conference committee on a largely unrelated bill and attaching the tax-cut extensions to a “conference report” on that bill, thereby bypassing normal consideration in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor of whether the tax-cut extensions should be paid for. This gambit is designed to force a single up-or-down vote on a conference report that would consist primarily of tax-cut extensions the Senate has not previously considered. Those who vote against the conference report would likely be attacked as favoring “tax increases” on middle-class families, despite the fact that nearly all Senators and Congressmen who voted “no” would favor legislation to extend these tax cuts and offset the costs of doing so.CBPP
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 14 2004, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE(Veb)
A lot of the problems with California you mention has nothing to do with Bush. California had a 10% state budget increase every year, this is not sustainable. This is a spending issue.
While I won’t deny that California has problems unrelated to the Bush Tax, you can’t deny that Bush’s “tax cuts” weren’t a factor in those problems becoming that much worse. And since California is only one ~30 states that are projecting deficits for Fiscal Year 2005 as a result of the Bush “tax cuts”, don’t miss seeing the forest for the trees.
QUOTE
“A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.” Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That’s the Bush Tax. Source(For details, see the link below to the CBPP report. )
QUOTE
Given the magnitude of the deficits, states likely will enact further cuts to basic services such as health care and education and/or impose new tax burdens particularly on low- and middle-income families (who have borne the majority of the tax increases so far). Source:CBPP
Emphasis mine. I'm pretty sure that's you and me, folks.
QUOTE(Lethalletha)
What I find very strange is how people who get more in a refund, than they paid in, complain about paying taxes. If you get more back then was paid in, you didn't pay taxes.
Wow, I want the name of your tax preparer!
I paid in approx. $16,000 and got $3,000 back. How does that equate to “paying no taxes”???Edited to add: Oh, now this is just insidious!!!
QUOTE
Spurred by a White House meeting on July 7, Republican leaders in Congress are reportedly planning to use an unusual strategy to extend certain tax cuts without paying for them. The strategy is to adopt these policies by reviving a moribund conference committee on a largely unrelated bill and attaching the tax-cut extensions to a “conference report” on that bill, thereby bypassing normal consideration in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor of whether the tax-cut extensions should be paid for. This gambit is designed to force a single up-or-down vote on a conference report that would consist primarily of tax-cut extensions the Senate has not previously considered. Those who vote against the conference report would likely be attacked as favoring “tax increases” on middle-class families, despite the fact that nearly all Senators and Congressmen who voted “no” would favor legislation to extend these tax cuts and offset the costs of doing so.CBPP
QUOTE
QUOTE(Lethalletha)
What I find very strange is how people who get more in a refund, than they paid in, complain about paying taxes. If you get more back then was paid in, you didn't pay taxes.
Wow, I want the name of your tax preparer!
I paid in approx. $16,000 and got $3,000 back. How does that equate to “paying no taxes”???I said if you got MORE than you paid in. If you paid in $16,000 and got back a refund of $3,000 then you paid $13,000 in taxes. It is when one pays in about $1500 and gets a refund of $3000 that they didn't pay taxes. How could they? They are getting back their $1500 and an additional $1500. So, where did they pay taxes?
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jul 14 2004, 12:01 PM)
I said if you got MORE than you paid in. If you paid in $16,000 and got back a refund of $3,000 then you paid $13,000 in taxes. It is when one pays in about $1500 and gets a refund of $3000 that they didn't pay taxes. How could they? They are getting back their $1500 and an additional $1500. So, where did they pay taxes?
You still paid taxes Lethalletha, you just didn't owe any additional money at tax filing time. That generally means you were smart about your paycheck deductions (if you broke even or owed a little bit). If you get a refund that just means you gave the government money interest free during the year. It does not necessarily imply that you are paying less in taxes -- you paid too much!
The only real way to compare what your tax payments were year over year is to look at your total income vs the amount of taxes you paid (which includes payroll deductions).
Bush's "tax cuts" were a factor in Californias, and several other states deficits. I do not deny that, and it is part of the reason why I think the "tax cuts" has hurt the economy. I don't like the fact that the debt is rising as much as it is today, and I would like to see the federal government balance their budget, and every state should balance their budgets. Having said that, it is a little misleading throwing the numbers around the way you do. The national debt can't be compared to personal debt that needs to be paid off. The only responsibility for the federal government is to pay the interest, and currently this interest payment is not a huge problem for the economy. It is in danger of becoming a problem, so I would like the federal government to balance their budgets before it becomes a problem. Today the debt to GDP ratio is around (7.27/11.45) 0.63 (63%), which is a little high, but not completely off the chart (historically speaking). If we balanced the budget for 20 years, and assuming steady GDP growth, the current debt would become a non issue. If the debt grows faster than the GDP, we will get into trouble. So far it is not alarming, but should be handled before it becomes an issue. I don't see any need to strive to pay this off. I know the outlook for a balanced budget is pretty bleak for the next 10 years, but personally I would like this to be achieved by reducing government spending rather than increasing taxes.
I encourage those who believe the "tax cuts" are a good thing to read this article:
THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX CUTS
Once the Tax Cuts are Paid for, Low- and Middle-Income Households Likely To Be Net Losers, on Average Report
It analyzes various scenarios how to finance the "tax cuts" and who winds up with the short end of the stick (no big surprise here!
). I think this will have far-reaching negative effects for all of us not in the top earnings percentages.
THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX CUTS
Once the Tax Cuts are Paid for, Low- and Middle-Income Households Likely To Be Net Losers, on Average Report
QUOTE
The central goal of this analysis is to correct this misleading impression by showing not only who benefits directly from the recent tax cuts but also who benefits and who loses once the financing of the tax cuts is considered. Specifically, we examine the distribution of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (once they are fully in effect and reflecting the President’s proposal to make most of these tax cuts permanent) combined with the costs of paying for those tax cuts. We therefore examine the “net effects” of the tax cuts, accounting for both the direct benefits and the costs associated with financing those benefits.
It analyzes various scenarios how to finance the "tax cuts" and who winds up with the short end of the stick (no big surprise here!
). I think this will have far-reaching negative effects for all of us not in the top earnings percentages.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 14 2004, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jul 14 2004, 12:01 PM)
I said if you got MORE than you paid in. If you paid in $16,000 and got back a refund of $3,000 then you paid $13,000 in taxes. It is when one pays in about $1500 and gets a refund of $3000 that they didn't pay taxes. How could they? They are getting back their $1500 and an additional $1500. So, where did they pay taxes?
You still paid taxes Lethalletha, you just didn't owe any additional money at tax filing time. That generally means you were smart about your paycheck deductions (if you broke even or owed a little bit). If you get a refund that just means you gave the government money interest free during the year. It does not necessarily imply that you are paying less in taxes -- you paid too much!
The only real way to compare what your tax payments were year over year is to look at your total income vs the amount of taxes you paid (which includes payroll deductions).
Okay, explain to me how if you get back all that you paid in and get money back on top of that how did one pay taxes.
A shirt cost 4.95 and you the clerk $5.30 get back 10.60 how much did you pay for the shirt?
I'd say you got if free.
Lethalletha,
in your example the person did pay negative tax, i.e. got more back than what s/he paid in. This is a really strange situation, and it is really a form of welfare I guess. I only had a problem with your one statement saying that anybody that gets a refund didn't pay taxes.
For the shirt example, I'd say it depends on how much you gave the guy.
If you gave the guy a twenty dollar bill, and he gave you back $10.60, you still paid $9.40 - way too much. If you gave him nothing, and got the shirt and $10.60, I'd say you got it for a lot better than free
in your example the person did pay negative tax, i.e. got more back than what s/he paid in. This is a really strange situation, and it is really a form of welfare I guess. I only had a problem with your one statement saying that anybody that gets a refund didn't pay taxes.
For the shirt example, I'd say it depends on how much you gave the guy.
If you gave the guy a twenty dollar bill, and he gave you back $10.60, you still paid $9.40 - way too much. If you gave him nothing, and got the shirt and $10.60, I'd say you got it for a lot better than free
QUOTE(Veb @ Jul 14 2004, 02:45 PM)
Lethalletha,
in your example the person did pay negative tax, i.e. got more back than what s/he paid in. This is a really strange situation, and it is really a form of welfare I guess. I only had a problem with your one statement saying that anybody that gets a refund didn't pay taxes.
For the shirt example, I'd say it depends on how much you gave the guy.
If you gave the guy a twenty dollar bill, and he gave you back $10.60, you still paid $9.40 - way too much. If you gave him nothing, and got the shirt and $10.60, I'd say you got it for a lot better than free
in your example the person did pay negative tax, i.e. got more back than what s/he paid in. This is a really strange situation, and it is really a form of welfare I guess. I only had a problem with your one statement saying that anybody that gets a refund didn't pay taxes.
For the shirt example, I'd say it depends on how much you gave the guy.
If you gave the guy a twenty dollar bill, and he gave you back $10.60, you still paid $9.40 - way too much. If you gave him nothing, and got the shirt and $10.60, I'd say you got it for a lot better than free
QUOTE
I only had a problem with your one statement saying that anybody that gets a refund didn't pay taxes.
I didn't say anyone who got a refund didn't pay taxes. I said if you got all that you paid in(you pay in 500 and get 500 back) then you didn't pay taxes. Yes, it all came out of your checks, but in the end you get it back.
As for the shirt example, after reading it, went back and added a dollar amount.
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jul 14 2004, 12:31 PM)
Okay, explain to me how if you get back all that you paid in and get money back on top of that how did one pay taxes.
You never get back all that you paid in taxes.
If you pay $16000 during the year through payroll deductions and get back $400 at tax time -- did you not pay taxes? What about the $15,600 you already gave the government?
Edited to add: You never get back all that you paid in taxes, above a certain income level.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 14 2004, 04:01 PM)
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jul 14 2004, 12:31 PM)
Okay, explain to me how if you get back all that you paid in and get money back on top of that how did one pay taxes.
You never get back all that you paid in taxes.
If you pay $16000 during the year through payroll deductions and get back $400 at tax time -- did you not pay taxes? What about the $15,600 you already gave the government?
QUOTE
You never get back all that you paid in taxes.
Some people do! My sister is an example, and I know other people who do. Not every one pays taxes.
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
I think this is a very subjective question. These tax cuts were first offered as a campaign pledge to cut taxes. Then when the economy turned sour they were offered up as a way to stimulate the economy. But the tax proposal didn't change much, just the words used to market it.
How is the end of the estate tax in 2010 designed to stimulate the economy? I think that those of us who received some more money back the last few years received some modest immediate benefits. However I think that we have implemented some long term damage to an economy that is was already facing an impending crisis in the arrival of social security shortfalls in 2008.
I don't see these cuts as economic stimulus because they are designed to be fazed in over ten years, and their long terms costs are somewhat hidden because they have expiration dates built into them.
I would feel better if our government went in a different direction than tax cuts.
If tax cuts are to be implemented I think it is damaging to the economy to not have them connected to cost cuts. And in that is where I don't see Bush as a fiscal conservative.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
I think the tax cuts are of tremendous importance in the 2004 presidential campaign. They are the greatest victory of the Bush administration. People like tax cuts and they are easier to face when there are no accompanying cuts in government services, in fact when there are also expansions of government services in homeland defense and a medicare supplement. I don't think it is honest governing but I think it is very effective short term politics. (Jackson's economic policies were horrid (IMHO) but he was a very popular president. Of course Van Buren paid the price when the economy collapsed in 1837. Short term, good politics)
People need to sit and think on this, and think long and hard. Kerry has the more difficult task of arguing about long term benefits of dropping the taxes on the higher end of the income scale (and putting back capital gains and estate taxes and closing corporate loopholes) when so much can change along the way. Bush can say, look I have done something for you lately, and most people will believe it, even those that got no rebate or tax cuts because of their low income. Bush is also using the term class warfare against Bush when we defends the tax cuts that give so much benefit to members of the extremely wealthy political donor class, and continue to put a greater tax burden on taxes earned from income than from capital.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
I have received two rebate checks, one year I then had to owe taxes when I expected to get a refund, this past year I got a check in September ($600 I think) and received less than I thought I would as a refund check in April.
Since I have two kids though, my tax burden in dropping. I expect, though, that the deficit spending is going to result in rising interest rates that might price us out of the housing area we hoped to move into in two years.
I think this is a very subjective question. These tax cuts were first offered as a campaign pledge to cut taxes. Then when the economy turned sour they were offered up as a way to stimulate the economy. But the tax proposal didn't change much, just the words used to market it.
How is the end of the estate tax in 2010 designed to stimulate the economy? I think that those of us who received some more money back the last few years received some modest immediate benefits. However I think that we have implemented some long term damage to an economy that is was already facing an impending crisis in the arrival of social security shortfalls in 2008.
I don't see these cuts as economic stimulus because they are designed to be fazed in over ten years, and their long terms costs are somewhat hidden because they have expiration dates built into them.
I would feel better if our government went in a different direction than tax cuts.
If tax cuts are to be implemented I think it is damaging to the economy to not have them connected to cost cuts. And in that is where I don't see Bush as a fiscal conservative.
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
I think the tax cuts are of tremendous importance in the 2004 presidential campaign. They are the greatest victory of the Bush administration. People like tax cuts and they are easier to face when there are no accompanying cuts in government services, in fact when there are also expansions of government services in homeland defense and a medicare supplement. I don't think it is honest governing but I think it is very effective short term politics. (Jackson's economic policies were horrid (IMHO) but he was a very popular president. Of course Van Buren paid the price when the economy collapsed in 1837. Short term, good politics)
People need to sit and think on this, and think long and hard. Kerry has the more difficult task of arguing about long term benefits of dropping the taxes on the higher end of the income scale (and putting back capital gains and estate taxes and closing corporate loopholes) when so much can change along the way. Bush can say, look I have done something for you lately, and most people will believe it, even those that got no rebate or tax cuts because of their low income. Bush is also using the term class warfare against Bush when we defends the tax cuts that give so much benefit to members of the extremely wealthy political donor class, and continue to put a greater tax burden on taxes earned from income than from capital.
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
I have received two rebate checks, one year I then had to owe taxes when I expected to get a refund, this past year I got a check in September ($600 I think) and received less than I thought I would as a refund check in April.
Since I have two kids though, my tax burden in dropping. I expect, though, that the deficit spending is going to result in rising interest rates that might price us out of the housing area we hoped to move into in two years.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Bush [Kerry?] is also using the term class warfare against Bush when we defends the tax cuts that give so much benefit to members of the extremely wealthy political donor class, and continue to put a greater tax burden on taxes earned from income than from capital.
This brings up an interesting conundrum. How does any politician, regardless of party, implement a tax structure that is fair to the majority of the country (the not-so-wealthy) without alienating his wealthy supporters (the minority), who I assume would have to bear a greater tax burden than they have to with the cushy deal they’ve got going on now? Is America becoming “of the rich people, by the rich people and for the rich people”? Or has it always been that way and I’m just being naïve?
I don't think anything has really changed that much in regards to the "for the rich" policy. A fair tax system is hard to define. What is fair? Everybody will have a different answer. Some might say that everybody should pay exactly the same $ amount, some say we should all pay a fixed percent, some and most agree that we should have some type of progressive tax, such we have today. The more money you make, the higher percent tax you pay. There are good arguments for all. If you are poor in this country you do not pay much taxes, we even have one example where one person not only does not pay taxes, but actually gets a check from the government.
When we do get a tax cut, there is always an issue, simply because it is "always" favoring the "rich". A 1% across the board tax cut, will only give $400 in the pocket to a person that makes $40,000 and pays $5000 in taxes, but it will give $3000 in the pocket of a person making $300,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes. Comparing the $3000 to the $400 makes it seem very unfair, and perhaps it is. Why give a tax cut to someone making $300,000?
If we compare the US to for example Europe, the US looks to favor the rich. Is Europe more fair than the US? The bottom line is defining fair is impossible.
When we do get a tax cut, there is always an issue, simply because it is "always" favoring the "rich". A 1% across the board tax cut, will only give $400 in the pocket to a person that makes $40,000 and pays $5000 in taxes, but it will give $3000 in the pocket of a person making $300,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes. Comparing the $3000 to the $400 makes it seem very unfair, and perhaps it is. Why give a tax cut to someone making $300,000?
If we compare the US to for example Europe, the US looks to favor the rich. Is Europe more fair than the US? The bottom line is defining fair is impossible.
I wanted to expand on my comments about my feelings about the economic effects of the Bush tax cuts and why I think they are bad for the country and are in fact skewed to be regressive in nature. (As opposed to flat or progressive)
My ideas have been largely informed by reading a recent book by David Cay Johnston and are supported by an MSNBC article by Allan Sloan of Newsweek and a regular contributor to NPR.
My basic conclusions are that the Bush tax cuts 1) favor capital income over labor or salary income, 2) help heighten the disturbing trend of wealth being redistributed to the super rich from the upper middle class and the poor, 3) encourages savings and makes it harder for the major consumer classes (middle and upper middle class) to spend and save, and 4) that this is a long term trend that threaten our democratic system because IMHO democracy is dependant on a strong and stable and, ideally, growing middle class.
I will provide some documentation as I go, but have other material to back up my opinions should anyone request it.
I believe that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy and that they are regressive in nature.
I think they contribute to the trend of widening the gap between the very rich and the poor by redistributing income upwards.
I think the tax cuts penalize the consumer classes of middle, upper middle, and affluent Americans and rewards the investor class of those who already possess working capital in high amounts.
The income tax cuts do not address the payroll taxes which are high, highly regressive, and a strong drag on the U.S. labor market. Most economists count moth the employee and employer contributions to SSI and Medicare as taces paid by the employee. the logic here is that although the employer tax serves as a hidden tax to the employee, the employer hires after taking in account the total cost of bringing on a new employee. These payroll taxes make employers more reluctant to make new hires and more reluctant to raise wages. While we have a soft job market these added costs of employing people in the United States can only increase the outsourcing of jobs overseas. This reduces corporate labor costs and increases income to investors at the expense of the domestic labor market.
Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up
The average member of the working poor likely pay no income taxes and this creates the illusion that he is untaxed. In effect he is being taxed fairly heavily from dollar one. But nobody in the major parties is seriously discussing fixing this issue. Also these taxes for the vast majority of Americans or more than income taxes. From the Sloan article
The American workers of the lower and middle classes struggle to save money and find it even harder to find jobs with pensions today. These people dependent on income from labor and services are penalized by our social security system in paying since 1986 more money to the supposed trust fund that has been actually used as part of the funds to run our government.
So working people have been paying tax dollars today for services they will received well into the future while the government gets the value of having that money early. At the same time wealthy investors have been exploiting the ever increasingly complex tax code mining for more and more lucrative tax shelters that tend to take todays income and defer paying the taxes on that income well into the future. In the meantime they keep the full dollars of income and collect compound interest on the money.
The present tax cuts were passed by using accounting tricks to minimize the real costs of the tax cuts and also by ignoring the effects of what I have read described as the stealth tax, the alternative minimum tax. (AMT) The AMT will surprise many people in the middle and upper middle classes in the coming years as they learn that they will not be able to capitalize on existing deductions to the full dollar amount because they will be exposed to the AMT. Neither party seems poised to do anything about this because of the tremendous change in the costs of the existing tax cuts it would entail. As far as I can tell the AMT tends to apply to income labor but not dividend income and capital gains. This AMT was designed to catch a list of US tax payers that had used tax shelters to end up paying not a penny in taxes in years in which their real income was substantial. So the AMT was passed to ensnare tax dodgers among the super rich. It has been allowed over the years to creep down the income ladder from the super rich, to the rich, to the affluent, and now courtesy of the Bush tax cuts, magically the Bush tax cuts will disappear or get reduced for many middle class Americans and people will be kicked into the 26-28 tax rate of the AMT.
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
The looming end of the estate tax rewards a very small percentage of wealthy families by allowing mulit-million dollar estates to be handed down free of any tax burden. This will be another loss of revenue and this is definitely a tax break for the very wealthy. Tinkering with the estate tax would exempt the vast majority of households from tax without continuing a process of large fortunes drifting through the generations without being considered incomes when the recipients receive this gift.
These taxed cuts were packaged in such a way that the immediate benefits would lend in the pockets of the many but over time, especially after the 2004 elections the benefits begin to be realized in large money bags by the political donor class that supports the political engines of both political parties.
same link as above.
My conclusion is that even if cutting taxes (and services) is a good idea for our economy, these tax cut are, despite loud and consistent arguments to the contrary, heavily designed to reduce the burden of taxation on the top 1% of American families and shift it immediately or in the long run with interest, to the working and upper-middle classes.
My ideas have been largely informed by reading a recent book by David Cay Johnston and are supported by an MSNBC article by Allan Sloan of Newsweek and a regular contributor to NPR.
My basic conclusions are that the Bush tax cuts 1) favor capital income over labor or salary income, 2) help heighten the disturbing trend of wealth being redistributed to the super rich from the upper middle class and the poor, 3) encourages savings and makes it harder for the major consumer classes (middle and upper middle class) to spend and save, and 4) that this is a long term trend that threaten our democratic system because IMHO democracy is dependant on a strong and stable and, ideally, growing middle class.
I will provide some documentation as I go, but have other material to back up my opinions should anyone request it.
I believe that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy and that they are regressive in nature.
I think they contribute to the trend of widening the gap between the very rich and the poor by redistributing income upwards.
I think the tax cuts penalize the consumer classes of middle, upper middle, and affluent Americans and rewards the investor class of those who already possess working capital in high amounts.
The income tax cuts do not address the payroll taxes which are high, highly regressive, and a strong drag on the U.S. labor market. Most economists count moth the employee and employer contributions to SSI and Medicare as taces paid by the employee. the logic here is that although the employer tax serves as a hidden tax to the employee, the employer hires after taking in account the total cost of bringing on a new employee. These payroll taxes make employers more reluctant to make new hires and more reluctant to raise wages. While we have a soft job market these added costs of employing people in the United States can only increase the outsourcing of jobs overseas. This reduces corporate labor costs and increases income to investors at the expense of the domestic labor market.
QUOTE
The total combined Social Security and Medicare tax is a whopping 15.3 percent on the first $87,900 of salary (or other earned income) and 2.9 percent on the rest. (I'm counting workers' total cost the way the Congressional Budget Office, Mankiw and virtually all other economists do, by assuming that workers foot the bill not only for the taxes they pay themselves but also for what their employers pay.)
Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up
The average member of the working poor likely pay no income taxes and this creates the illusion that he is untaxed. In effect he is being taxed fairly heavily from dollar one. But nobody in the major parties is seriously discussing fixing this issue. Also these taxes for the vast majority of Americans or more than income taxes. From the Sloan article
QUOTE
If we're going to talk about what Americans pay in income taxes, let's deal with the elephants in the room that are almost never mentioned—Social Security and Medicare. Now get this: about 75 percent of American families pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than in income tax.
The American workers of the lower and middle classes struggle to save money and find it even harder to find jobs with pensions today. These people dependent on income from labor and services are penalized by our social security system in paying since 1986 more money to the supposed trust fund that has been actually used as part of the funds to run our government.
So working people have been paying tax dollars today for services they will received well into the future while the government gets the value of having that money early. At the same time wealthy investors have been exploiting the ever increasingly complex tax code mining for more and more lucrative tax shelters that tend to take todays income and defer paying the taxes on that income well into the future. In the meantime they keep the full dollars of income and collect compound interest on the money.
The present tax cuts were passed by using accounting tricks to minimize the real costs of the tax cuts and also by ignoring the effects of what I have read described as the stealth tax, the alternative minimum tax. (AMT) The AMT will surprise many people in the middle and upper middle classes in the coming years as they learn that they will not be able to capitalize on existing deductions to the full dollar amount because they will be exposed to the AMT. Neither party seems poised to do anything about this because of the tremendous change in the costs of the existing tax cuts it would entail. As far as I can tell the AMT tends to apply to income labor but not dividend income and capital gains. This AMT was designed to catch a list of US tax payers that had used tax shelters to end up paying not a penny in taxes in years in which their real income was substantial. So the AMT was passed to ensnare tax dodgers among the super rich. It has been allowed over the years to creep down the income ladder from the super rich, to the rich, to the affluent, and now courtesy of the Bush tax cuts, magically the Bush tax cuts will disappear or get reduced for many middle class Americans and people will be kicked into the 26-28 tax rate of the AMT.
QUOTE
Because the Bush tax program sharply reduced regular tax rates, the alternative tax, whose exemptions are not indexed for inflation or income growth, will affect more and more taxpayers over time. The 2001 tax act temporarily mitigated this problem by increasing the alternative tax exemption (from $45,000 to $49,000 for couples). But that partial relief expires after 2004. As a result, the number of families paying the alternative tax will explode after 2004.
As recently as 1999, only a million taxpayers, almost all of them very well off, actually paid the alternative tax, which added just $6.5 billion to federal revenues. But absent legislative change, by the time the Bush tax cuts are fully in place in 2010, 36 million families will have to fill out the complicated alternative tax forms, and cough up an extra $140 billion on top of their regular taxes. Even without change, however, the alternative tax has only relatively minor effects on the very wealthy, since their regular top marginal tax rate, even after falling to 33 percent, will still be well above the 26-28 percent alternative rate.
As recently as 1999, only a million taxpayers, almost all of them very well off, actually paid the alternative tax, which added just $6.5 billion to federal revenues. But absent legislative change, by the time the Bush tax cuts are fully in place in 2010, 36 million families will have to fill out the complicated alternative tax forms, and cough up an extra $140 billion on top of their regular taxes. Even without change, however, the alternative tax has only relatively minor effects on the very wealthy, since their regular top marginal tax rate, even after falling to 33 percent, will still be well above the 26-28 percent alternative rate.
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
The looming end of the estate tax rewards a very small percentage of wealthy families by allowing mulit-million dollar estates to be handed down free of any tax burden. This will be another loss of revenue and this is definitely a tax break for the very wealthy. Tinkering with the estate tax would exempt the vast majority of households from tax without continuing a process of large fortunes drifting through the generations without being considered incomes when the recipients receive this gift.
These taxed cuts were packaged in such a way that the immediate benefits would lend in the pockets of the many but over time, especially after the 2004 elections the benefits begin to be realized in large money bags by the political donor class that supports the political engines of both political parties.
QUOTE
From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive “only” 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill—including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates—are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
In addition to delayed phase-ins, Congress and the President offered only a short-term, partial adjustment to the individual alternative minimum tax. Originally intended to stop very high-income taxpayers from using loopholes to pay little or nothing in income taxes, the essentially flat-rate alternative tax must be paid if it exceeds regular income taxes due. Because the Bush tax program sharply reduced regular tax rates, the alternative tax, whose exemptions are not indexed for inflation or income growth, will affect more and more taxpayers over time.
From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill—including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates—are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
In addition to delayed phase-ins, Congress and the President offered only a short-term, partial adjustment to the individual alternative minimum tax. Originally intended to stop very high-income taxpayers from using loopholes to pay little or nothing in income taxes, the essentially flat-rate alternative tax must be paid if it exceeds regular income taxes due. Because the Bush tax program sharply reduced regular tax rates, the alternative tax, whose exemptions are not indexed for inflation or income growth, will affect more and more taxpayers over time.
same link as above.
My conclusion is that even if cutting taxes (and services) is a good idea for our economy, these tax cut are, despite loud and consistent arguments to the contrary, heavily designed to reduce the burden of taxation on the top 1% of American families and shift it immediately or in the long run with interest, to the working and upper-middle classes.
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
I've never been one to buy into trickle-down economics for one second, so my initial inclination is to say no. The reason that giving money to low- and middle-classers works so well is that their money goes back into the economy almost immediately: why do you think the New Deal worked so well? The point is, most Americans are seeing negligible income tax refunds while the rich are seeing massive gains-- especially since the estate tax was overturned. These tax cuts will undeniably affect future generations in very adverse ways. Dick Cheney might disagree, but deficits do matter; they add to the national debt and raise interest rates. Higher interest rates certainly don't stimulate the economy; somebody has to pay off that massive debt to bring them down. Dubya and crew will be long gone before the full effects of these massive deficits set in, but when they do it will be a real damper on the economy. In the short term, some may argue that they've lead to job creation, but that job creation has been mediocre at best. People are under the impression that tax cuts are free money: they have to be paid for in the end; it's only a question of whether your children or grandchildren will foot the bill. In my state, we're paying for these tax cuts; any gains through the tax cuts are going straight into sales tax. We pay the highest sales tax in the nation (my local tax is 9.25%). The states and counties have to raise that lost money somehow.
State-by-State Sales Tax Comparison
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
People love the words "tax cut": they don't love paying for them. People like getting money; it's basic human nature. We like money even if the sum is so paltry that it has no effect. We like getting money even when we pay more than we get; money on the spot makes us feel good. However, it really sucks to be the politician who has to tell the people that they will have to pay more in taxes to pay for that money they received. Most people don't realize that when the government gives them some money, chances are they'll be paying it back later and then some. Taxes will be an integral part of this election cycle: Dubya will be defending his tax cuts for the rich and Senator Kerry will be trying to avoid the issue that he'll have to raise taxes for Dubya's hand outs. Dubya knows that his successor will have to pay for them if they want to get anything done: he's going to use that very effectively. Perhaps people should be made aware that they'll have to pay for them sometime, and that those tax cuts weren't really that helpful:
In fact, the CBPP report states that the bottom eighty percent will lose $113 billion if the tax cuts are financed with an equal dollar burden per household-- and $27 billion if financed by payments proportional to income. Furthermore, it claims that the top twenty percent and the over $1 million income levels will gain $113 billion and $35 billion, respectively ($27 and $15 billion with proportional payments).
The people need to understand that they are not winning out on this deal, and that they will have to foot the bill later on. I just don't want to be the one to tell them.
The Ultimate Burden of the Tax Cuts
I've never been one to buy into trickle-down economics for one second, so my initial inclination is to say no. The reason that giving money to low- and middle-classers works so well is that their money goes back into the economy almost immediately: why do you think the New Deal worked so well? The point is, most Americans are seeing negligible income tax refunds while the rich are seeing massive gains-- especially since the estate tax was overturned. These tax cuts will undeniably affect future generations in very adverse ways. Dick Cheney might disagree, but deficits do matter; they add to the national debt and raise interest rates. Higher interest rates certainly don't stimulate the economy; somebody has to pay off that massive debt to bring them down. Dubya and crew will be long gone before the full effects of these massive deficits set in, but when they do it will be a real damper on the economy. In the short term, some may argue that they've lead to job creation, but that job creation has been mediocre at best. People are under the impression that tax cuts are free money: they have to be paid for in the end; it's only a question of whether your children or grandchildren will foot the bill. In my state, we're paying for these tax cuts; any gains through the tax cuts are going straight into sales tax. We pay the highest sales tax in the nation (my local tax is 9.25%). The states and counties have to raise that lost money somehow.
State-by-State Sales Tax Comparison
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
People love the words "tax cut": they don't love paying for them. People like getting money; it's basic human nature. We like money even if the sum is so paltry that it has no effect. We like getting money even when we pay more than we get; money on the spot makes us feel good. However, it really sucks to be the politician who has to tell the people that they will have to pay more in taxes to pay for that money they received. Most people don't realize that when the government gives them some money, chances are they'll be paying it back later and then some. Taxes will be an integral part of this election cycle: Dubya will be defending his tax cuts for the rich and Senator Kerry will be trying to avoid the issue that he'll have to raise taxes for Dubya's hand outs. Dubya knows that his successor will have to pay for them if they want to get anything done: he's going to use that very effectively. Perhaps people should be made aware that they'll have to pay for them sometime, and that those tax cuts weren't really that helpful:
QUOTE(CBPP Report)
On average, the bottom four-fifths of households — households with income below about $76,400 — would lose more than they gain from the tax cuts once the necessary financing is taken into account. That is, once the need for financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of the population as a group.
In fact, the CBPP report states that the bottom eighty percent will lose $113 billion if the tax cuts are financed with an equal dollar burden per household-- and $27 billion if financed by payments proportional to income. Furthermore, it claims that the top twenty percent and the over $1 million income levels will gain $113 billion and $35 billion, respectively ($27 and $15 billion with proportional payments).
The people need to understand that they are not winning out on this deal, and that they will have to foot the bill later on. I just don't want to be the one to tell them.
The Ultimate Burden of the Tax Cuts
QUOTE
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy
The tax cuts temporary helped the economy in the "short run" but did nothing for the economy in the "long run". I believe the refinancing of home mortgage did more for the economy and put more money in cicrculation than the "tax cuts"
QUOTE
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
I would assume that for the people that only look at the surface of the "tax cuts" will surmise that it was good and will vote for Bush. But for anyone that looks below the surface,they will find the truth.
Anyone that has taken an economic course in college(or even high school) will know that an economic policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending(not including Iraq war or anything connected to it) is a disaster.
Even a segment of the Republicans disagrees with this Bush policy. Now we have a large deficit plus more interest to pay on that national debt.
QUOTE
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?
We usually receive a small amount back from the IRS on our taxes each year. This year nothing. I didn't expect to get any more back from Bush's tax policy this year, so I wasn't disappointed.
I believe it's still a little early to tell, and maybe we need to tweak the question to include who the Bush "tax-cuts" help. I add that after reading this on the net.
Okay, so the president is giving his tax-cuts are needed for business owners so that they will hire more people mantra, makes sense-in particular if you know a few points about economics. The problem?
Playing Politics with Jobs article
Well, I guess this example confirms to me that his tax-cuts are not meant to be for those in the middle and lower classes.
It's one thing to say people who earn their money should keep it. It's quit another to go out on a perilous plank and say: "If we give owners of businesses tax breaks, more people will be hired." 
This example clearly shows that it's a rather flawed principle. Heck, the president probably still thinks the factory is there!. 
QUOTE
The prez had traveled to Ohio, a state that's up for grabs in this fall's election, to hype the value of all the tax giveaways he passed for the rich. He went to Canton to claim that those giveaways would trickle-down from the rich to create jobs for middle-class America, and he needed a good visual for his televised speech. Timken's factory was the perfect made-for-TV backdrop. A crowd of Timken's hard-hatted, blue-collar workers was dutifully assembled for Bush. The bossman, Tim Timken himself, was on stage beaming with pride and nodding in approval at George's every sentence. Why wouldn't he? Tim has long been a major financial backer of both Bush presidents.
Okay, so the president is giving his tax-cuts are needed for business owners so that they will hire more people mantra, makes sense-in particular if you know a few points about economics. The problem?
QUOTE
Now, fast forward to May of this year. Just months after George's highly-publicized rooster strut in Canton, Tim announced that he was closing three of his U.S. factories, eliminating 1,300 jobs, and moving production to low-wage centers elsewhere, including overseas. Curiously, there was no national media coverage of this development, which made a mockery of Bush's earlier political posturing.
Playing Politics with Jobs article
Well, I guess this example confirms to me that his tax-cuts are not meant to be for those in the middle and lower classes.
It's one thing to say people who earn their money should keep it. It's quit another to go out on a perilous plank and say: "If we give owners of businesses tax breaks, more people will be hired." This example clearly shows that it's a rather flawed principle. Heck, the president probably still thinks the factory is there!.
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
The Bush tax cuts have helped businesses. Corporate America seems to be the only one benefiting from these tax cuts. Yeah more jobs are being created, but the wages have not kept up. In addition, these jobs are low-wage jobs. More money for corporate America, less money for middle and low class Americans. WHERE ARE THE SO-CALLED VALUES IN THAT??
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
I think they are very important. To be realistic about this, the country will eventually need a tax increase to pay for all this mess Bush got us in. The war in Iraq, tax cuts, the flawed Medicare bill, etc... Good grief! How can you not raise taxes to pay for all this?? Its going to take more than cuts in social programs (which again hurt middle and low-class Americans
) to make up for everything. No matter who wins the election, tackling the federal budget is going to be a major challenge for Bush or Kerry.
[/QUOTE]And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?[QUOTE]
Well, the $800 I got last summer helped me to buy clothes and other 'needed' things for my families. But, it didn't matter because I was going to spend it anyway. So basically, I benefited for one month. I made my .00000000000001 percent contribution to the economy.
The Bush tax cuts have helped businesses. Corporate America seems to be the only one benefiting from these tax cuts. Yeah more jobs are being created, but the wages have not kept up. In addition, these jobs are low-wage jobs. More money for corporate America, less money for middle and low class Americans. WHERE ARE THE SO-CALLED VALUES IN THAT??
How important are tax cuts or tax increases in the 2004 presidential campaign?
I think they are very important. To be realistic about this, the country will eventually need a tax increase to pay for all this mess Bush got us in. The war in Iraq, tax cuts, the flawed Medicare bill, etc... Good grief! How can you not raise taxes to pay for all this?? Its going to take more than cuts in social programs (which again hurt middle and low-class Americans
) to make up for everything. No matter who wins the election, tackling the federal budget is going to be a major challenge for Bush or Kerry.[/QUOTE]And if I could add a personal inquiry:
How have Bush’s “tax cuts” affected you/your family?[QUOTE]
Well, the $800 I got last summer helped me to buy clothes and other 'needed' things for my families. But, it didn't matter because I was going to spend it anyway. So basically, I benefited for one month. I made my .00000000000001 percent contribution to the economy.
Let's see..., since Bush has been in office my income has tripled. I am building a new home, my wife no longer has to work, and I am able to invest and save while planning an early retirement.
Do I give credit to Bush for my personal success? HELL NO! But he did not impede me either. I credit my success to my own hard work and the support of my family, friends and loved ones.
Do I give credit to Bush for my personal success? HELL NO! But he did not impede me either. I credit my success to my own hard work and the support of my family, friends and loved ones.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jul 19 2004, 08:05 PM)
Let's see..., since Bush has been in office my income has tripled. I am building a new home, my wife no longer has to work, and I am able to invest and save while planning an early retirement.
While I applaud and congratulate you on your personal success, respectfully I have to say that it had little to nothing to do with Bush's policies. The graphs I posted in this post on this thread prove that.
Bush racked up a record deficit (which will hurt the economy in the long run) and his tax cuts did little to anything to stimulate the economy or job growth (in fact they just further increased the national debt).
If anything you should be thanking Alan Greenspan for the record low interest rates. However, Bush has no influence on this policy and Greenspan has be around for multiple administrations.
You failed to read the second sentence of my post CJ. I said I do not give Bush credit, and I also said his policies did not impede me either.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jul 20 2004, 01:03 AM)
You failed to read the second sentence of my post CJ. I said I do not give Bush credit, and I also said his policies did not impede me either.
Not yet, they haven't. But they will soon.
Here's why: your success has moved you into a higher tax bracket. You are now going to need to help pay for more of our runaway government spending that has only accelerated under the Bush Doctrine of "deficits don't matter".
But they do. The deficit spending must stop. The debt -- now running 7 trillion -- needs to be paid down. Funding must be found for Social Security, the new prescription drug plan, military occupation of Iraq, etc. Gotta come from somewhere. You think it'll come from lower-income folks or higher-income folks?
Welcome to the Club.
To add on to what amf wrote, here is a report from the Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf) that details the future burden from Bush's "tax cuts". If you take a look at this pdf file, you'll see that while most people got some sort of a tax cut, in the long run it is going to wind up costing us money for two reasons:
1) How Bush chose to "pay" for the tax cuts (e.g. borrowing money from foreign countries and Social Security)
2) The fact that Bush has drastically increased government expenditures while reducing revenue from taxes. The report cites that Bush spends approximately 87 Billion every 51 days.
1) How Bush chose to "pay" for the tax cuts (e.g. borrowing money from foreign countries and Social Security)
2) The fact that Bush has drastically increased government expenditures while reducing revenue from taxes. The report cites that Bush spends approximately 87 Billion every 51 days.
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
I just ran across this article and it kind of puts things in perspective - The Bush Tax Cuts
Zandi's alternative policy is pretty interesting and worth a read:
And finally, the summary -
I just ran across this article and it kind of puts things in perspective - The Bush Tax Cuts
QUOTE
The Bush administration has a mantra that we hear whenever some jobs are created: "The tax cuts are working." But are they? Mark Zandi, president of Economy.com and a highly respected economic forecaster, gave us the answer in a new report analyzing the factors in the past three years of growth; the administration’s tax cuts, principally for the rich, have had very little to do with it. Increased government spending (particularly on defense) and tax cuts for middle- and lower-income people each contributed more to growth than tax cuts for higher-income people.
The heaviest lifting by far in response to the recession and sluggish recovery has come from lower interest rates.
The heaviest lifting by far in response to the recession and sluggish recovery has come from lower interest rates.
QUOTE
Zandi makes the point that better policies could have given us 2.6 percent higher GDP in 2003 and two million more jobs in 2004. Economic performance that vigorous would have, in turn, cut our current fiscal deficit in half. As an engine of growth and jobs, the administration’s policies have clearly been second-rate.
QUOTE
The president's Council of Economic Advisers (his economics staff) projected in February 2003 that passing the administration’s tax cuts would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004 -- 306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. Of that number, according to the CEA, over two-thirds would have been generated even without a tax cut.
Thus, if the tax cuts had performed as projected over their first year, 3,672,000 jobs (306,000 a month for 12 months) should have been created. In fact, the administration fell more than 2.2 million jobs short of its own 12-month projection. Job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 10 of the past 12 months; only in March and April 2004 did total jobs created exceed 306,000.
Thus, if the tax cuts had performed as projected over their first year, 3,672,000 jobs (306,000 a month for 12 months) should have been created. In fact, the administration fell more than 2.2 million jobs short of its own 12-month projection. Job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 10 of the past 12 months; only in March and April 2004 did total jobs created exceed 306,000.
QUOTE
The new Economy.com analysis, which allows us to assess what has driven recent growth, is not encouraging for advocates of tax cuts for the rich. All policy changes combined generated an additional 3.5 percent of GDP growth in 2003. Of that, 63 percent came from cutting short-term interest rates from 6.5 percent in early 2001 to 1 percent by 2003 (the lowest rate in four decades). Greater defense spending added 0.4 percent to growth, accounting for 11 percent of the overall effect of “policy.”
What about the tax cuts? Those going to high-income taxpayers boosted GDP by just 0.1 percent in 2003, just one-fourth of the effect of war spending. The business tax breaks also had a minimal 0.1 percent impact on GDP in 2003. The tax cuts aimed at the middle class, such as the expansion of the child-care tax credit and the lowering of the threshold for the 10 percent income tax bracket, added 0.5 percent to GDP, an effect more than twice as great as the high-end tax cuts and business breaks combined. Yet nearly twice as much tax cutting went to high-income families and businesses.
What about the tax cuts? Those going to high-income taxpayers boosted GDP by just 0.1 percent in 2003, just one-fourth of the effect of war spending. The business tax breaks also had a minimal 0.1 percent impact on GDP in 2003. The tax cuts aimed at the middle class, such as the expansion of the child-care tax credit and the lowering of the threshold for the 10 percent income tax bracket, added 0.5 percent to GDP, an effect more than twice as great as the high-end tax cuts and business breaks combined. Yet nearly twice as much tax cutting went to high-income families and businesses.
Zandi's alternative policy is pretty interesting and worth a read:
QUOTE
Zandi also analyzes the impact that a better policy response would have had, one that focused on immediate creation of more spending and jobs.His alternative package would have taken effect in the fall of 2001 and included a payroll tax holiday (50 percent of the package), a one-time family tax cut (22 percent of the package), extended unemployment insurance (11 percent of the package), and state fiscal relief (17 percent of the package). This alternative package would have cost the same over three years as the administration’s policies, roughly $300 billion over the fiscal years 2002-04. Yet this policy approach, which directs temporary tax cuts toward lower- and middle-income families, would have had a much larger economic pay-off. Had it been enacted, we would be enjoying two million more jobs and much higher GDP this year. This greater growth would also have led to more revenue and less spending, thereby lowering the fiscal deficit in 2004 by roughly $200 billion, or 45 percent, from what we now expect this year. With good policy we could have been in a much better economic situation now.
The progressive policy package that Zandi examines would have had another huge advantage. Its temporary alternative tax and spending measures would raise the deficit only in the first year -- unlike the Bush administration policies, which create a large and permanent deficit long into the future.
The progressive policy package that Zandi examines would have had another huge advantage. Its temporary alternative tax and spending measures would raise the deficit only in the first year -- unlike the Bush administration policies, which create a large and permanent deficit long into the future.
And finally, the summary -
QUOTE
Thus, the centerpiece of the Bush economic policy -- massive tax cuts for those already well off -- created remarkably little growth in the short term and will reduce growth in the longer term. Bush’s plan, which he promoted just over a year ago as his “Jobs and Growth” plan, has turned out to be anything but.
QUOTE
Costs for in-state students at the University of California (at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz) in 2003-04 increased by 30% or an average of $1,254.70 per student from $4,182.30 to $5,437. Tuition and fees at the 23 California State University campuses in 2003-04 increased by 30% or an average of $588 per student from $1,956 to $2,544.
I'm paying that extra money, and the problem isn't with the federal government. It was Arnolds plan to increase UC fee's to offset the deficit we have in California.
QUOTE
Have Bush’s “tax cuts” helped or hurt the economy?
Tax cuts have their moments. Bush cut taxes in the pit of a recession while increasing government spending; good move. I would have preferred a larger portion of the cut to go to the lower class (Poor people spend all their money, rich people tend to horde it), but we're bouncing back none the less.
Interest rates remain relatively low compared to what Bush is borrowing. This is primarily because he's borrowing alot from foreign countries, not a fiscally conservatives favorite thing to do but it works. Hopefully, Greenspan is increasing interest rates because of a rise in business investment and not out of fear for inflation. Bush, if your reading this, now would be a great time to cut back on the deficit.
QUOTE
The Bush administration has a mantra that we hear whenever some jobs are created: "The tax cuts are working." But are they? Mark Zandi, president of Economy.com and a highly respected economic forecaster, gave us the answer in a new report analyzing the factors in the past three years of growth; the administration’s tax cuts, principally for the rich, have had very little to do with it. Increased government spending (particularly on defense) and tax cuts for middle- and lower-income people each contributed more to growth than tax cuts for higher-income people.
The heaviest lifting by far in response to the recession and sluggish recovery has come from lower interest rates.
The heaviest lifting by far in response to the recession and sluggish recovery has come from lower interest rates.
The first paragraph is partially wrong, because BOTH have contributed.
A tax cut definitely puts more discretionary cash into the hands of consumers and corporations alike. The problem is that it's being funded by borrowing from (mostly) Asia and it's not helping our balance of trade -- how much we buy from overseas vs. how much overseas buys from us -- one bit. Additional government spending has also put more money into the hands of corporations who do government work, which eventually trickles its way into the general economy.
The deficit the past two years has been $500 billion, which is 5% of our Gross Domestic Product (basically all transactions that occur in our economy during a period of time). Our GDP growth -- what we use to see whether we're growing the economy or not -- has been running right around 5% the past two years as well. Funny how those numbers coincide.
A tax cut combined with spending cuts to match wouldn't have changed the GDP one bit and we'd still be in a recession. Combining the two has forced additional money into the economy... at the expense of our future spending abilities. It's not ideal, but it worked to grow the economy.
Low interest rates combined with a bit more discretionary consumer cash has helped keep the housing market booming. The problem is that this situation is like any other in economics: it's cyclical. Interest rates will need to rise. Taxes will need to get raised or spending will need to come down (both of which will remove discretionary cash from the economy; all combined will kill the housing market boom).
Personal debt is at an extraordinarily high level these days. The situation isn't sustainable. Something will give. It won't be pretty when it does, no matter who is president.
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 29 2004, 05:43 AM)
The first paragraph is partially wrong, because BOTH have contributed.
It doesn't suggest otherwise, you should take the time to read the article in full and you'll the detailed analysis of the minimal impact of the tax cuts. Take into account the majority of them went to the uber-wealthy and the analysis suggesting that it will hurt us in the long term and you have your answer.
This article isn;t something you can pick and choose quotes out of like neat little soundbites, you have to look at the analysis too.
The problem lies in using the term tax cuts as a wholistic term. Some types of tax cuts can have a stimulus effect on both jobs and economic growth. In the case of the $300 rebate that was issued, that had an obvious stimulus effect on the economy (and arguably jobs), but it was short lived. What kind of jobs did it create? Typically retail and service jobs that likely pay around the minimum wage scale.
An example of an ineffective tax cut as a stimulus or job creation vehicle would be the "double tax" on dividends. Its considered a double tax because there is an initial tax on corporate profits and a 2nd tax on the income the individual receives from the dividend.
The problem with this theory lies in its application. First, how many middle and lower class individuals own stock? Not many. Second, given that most stock dividends would go to upper-middle and upper class individuals, what are they more likely to do with it? Reinvest (ie, buy more stock). This has a very indirect stimulus effect at best and very little to do with job creation.
Bottom line, when the surplus vanished, so should have the tax cuts. They had a mild stimulus effect but its fleeting at best. And we're now left with one of the largest budget deficits in history in spite of the fact that the recession we experienced wasn't even remotely classified as severe.
Apparently Bush doesn't study history either. Reagan learned that lesson in the early 80's. I guess the rest of the GOP didn't. Then again, tax cuts have too much nuance in them for serious review.
Doc
An example of an ineffective tax cut as a stimulus or job creation vehicle would be the "double tax" on dividends. Its considered a double tax because there is an initial tax on corporate profits and a 2nd tax on the income the individual receives from the dividend.
The problem with this theory lies in its application. First, how many middle and lower class individuals own stock? Not many. Second, given that most stock dividends would go to upper-middle and upper class individuals, what are they more likely to do with it? Reinvest (ie, buy more stock). This has a very indirect stimulus effect at best and very little to do with job creation.
Bottom line, when the surplus vanished, so should have the tax cuts. They had a mild stimulus effect but its fleeting at best. And we're now left with one of the largest budget deficits in history in spite of the fact that the recession we experienced wasn't even remotely classified as severe.
Apparently Bush doesn't study history either. Reagan learned that lesson in the early 80's. I guess the rest of the GOP didn't. Then again, tax cuts have too much nuance in them for serious review.
Doc
I think we have some smoking gun evidence here finally to prove that the Bush tax cuts did in fact benefit the extremely wealthy far more than the middle class, in fact the middle class tax burden increased.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Not on the chart but in the article:
Apparently the Bush administration is already prepared to dismiss it by simply saying "the democrats requested this report", as if somehow that makes the facts untrue.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
QUOTE
"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."
Apparently the Bush administration is already prepared to dismiss it by simply saying "the democrats requested this report", as if somehow that makes the facts untrue.
QUOTE
Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."
"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."
"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 13 2004, 04:54 PM)
I think we have some smoking gun evidence here finally to prove that the Bush tax cuts did in fact benefit the extremely wealthy far more than the middle class, in fact the middle class tax burden increased.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Not on the chart but in the article:
Apparently the Bush administration is already prepared to dismiss it by simply saying "the democrats requested this report", as if somehow that makes the facts untrue.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
QUOTE
"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."
Apparently the Bush administration is already prepared to dismiss it by simply saying "the democrats requested this report", as if somehow that makes the facts untrue.
QUOTE
Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."
"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."
"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"?
The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark".Oh brother.....
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Aug 13 2004, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"?
The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark".Oh brother.....
20% drop in taxes for the rich
9.3% drop in taxes for the middle
16% drop in taxes for the poor
A very odd pattern. So, the rich are seeing the most drop in taxes with the poor coming in 2nd. Doesn't it seem like it should be in the order from most to least drop: poor --> middle --> rich? Anywho, this whole "tax and spend liberals" thing.... ring, ring...hello?...1994 is calling and wants its phrase back. The new phrase for 2004 is "borrow and spend conservatives".
Aquilla
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
QUOTE
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
QUOTE
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
QUOTE
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark".
So Aquilla, you think the Republicans know how to spend money?? If the CBO's report that came out today came to the opposite conclusion that the tax cuts mainly benefit the middle and low-class, Republicans would be having a party at the White House. But the fact is with Bush's tax cut, ONLY the rich has benefited(which is what they really wanted).
Bush has use our tax payer dollars to give put more money into the hands of the wealthy. (This is a man who professes to be Christian, give to the ones in need, I mean rich) My advice to all Bush supporters, do not trust this man when it comes to economic decisions. You'll end up being another person filing in bankruptucy court.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Aug 13 2004, 06:48 PM)
Aquilla
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
QUOTE
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
QUOTE
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
Actually, what I am saying Popeye47, is that everyone is paying less in taxes. It doesn't even take a high school course in economics to know this is a good thing. Unless, of course, you happen to believe, as John Kerry does, that you know better how to spend other people's money than they do. I happen to disagree with that philosophy.
And, if you have a problem with the smiley faces, I suggest you take it up with Mike. He made them available, I just use them.
Honestly, I'm not sure how much impact the tax-cuts had on the economy, thats certainly a complicated debate, however I would like to refute the idea that John Kerry is the pro-tax candidate, polar opposite of Bush, and question why the media has allowed this image to be spread, often in campaign speeches, by Bush and supporters.
Thursday night of The DNC, Kerry spelled out, in as much detail as I might say an hour-long speech on so many topics might afford him-
To paraphrase, he said:
If you are in the lower and middle class, Kerry would like to actually further cut your taxes- but if you belong to the upper two percent of the nation Kerry would roll back the Bush Tax cuts, returning the tax rates for this upper class to the rates as the were during the Clinton Presidency.
The Following day, George Bush, in front of a swing state crowd, and more importantly, a CNN/Fox News/Network News Sound-Clip-Nation, "its real simple, they're gonna raise your taxes, we're not!"
While both CNN and Fox News aired the clips during multiple shows that weekend, to my knowledge, not one commentator, aired Kerry's plan before or after the soundclip, nor did any commentator point out the illegitamacy of Bush's claim- a claim, were it but for the flexible nature of 'you' in the english nature, would be, a falsehood, yes? Kerry just laid out a simple, 'voter-connect-able' plan to decrease taxes for the grand majority of Americans, and in ten seconds his message has now been complicated, confused, and undermined by an even simpler message.
If I had to predict the outcome of this tight election, I would say that in a battle of soundbites, it follows that the candidate with the simplest message is he who most effectively fires up his base and sways over swing voters. Hence, the republican's strategy of posing difficult questions to Kerry and, justifiably or not, portraying any nuance from the senator as a flip-flop.
Thursday night of The DNC, Kerry spelled out, in as much detail as I might say an hour-long speech on so many topics might afford him-
To paraphrase, he said:
If you are in the lower and middle class, Kerry would like to actually further cut your taxes- but if you belong to the upper two percent of the nation Kerry would roll back the Bush Tax cuts, returning the tax rates for this upper class to the rates as the were during the Clinton Presidency.
The Following day, George Bush, in front of a swing state crowd, and more importantly, a CNN/Fox News/Network News Sound-Clip-Nation, "its real simple, they're gonna raise your taxes, we're not!"
While both CNN and Fox News aired the clips during multiple shows that weekend, to my knowledge, not one commentator, aired Kerry's plan before or after the soundclip, nor did any commentator point out the illegitamacy of Bush's claim- a claim, were it but for the flexible nature of 'you' in the english nature, would be, a falsehood, yes? Kerry just laid out a simple, 'voter-connect-able' plan to decrease taxes for the grand majority of Americans, and in ten seconds his message has now been complicated, confused, and undermined by an even simpler message.
If I had to predict the outcome of this tight election, I would say that in a battle of soundbites, it follows that the candidate with the simplest message is he who most effectively fires up his base and sways over swing voters. Hence, the republican's strategy of posing difficult questions to Kerry and, justifiably or not, portraying any nuance from the senator as a flip-flop.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Aug 13 2004, 07:10 PM)
Actually, what I am saying Popeye47, is that everyone is paying less in taxes. It doesn't even take a high school course in economics to know this is a good thing. Unless, of course, you happen to believe, as John Kerry does, that you know better how to spend other people's money than they do. I happen to disagree with that philosophy.
There is a difference between getting a tax cut, as your figures showed and stating that your tax cuts "benefit the middle class the most".
The chart shows the percentage of the total federal income tax each income bracket pays -- not what their tax rate is, but how much they contribute to the collective kitty.
It shows that the poorest americans are contributing slightly less to the total federal tax base. Middle-class citizens are contributing more to the tax base and the richest Americans are contributing significantly less to the tax base.
For the past several years the Bush administration has vehemently denied that the richest Americans benefited the most from the tax cuts, this data proves they did. The Bush administration has also claimed repeatedly that the middle-class tax payers benefit the most. This data also disproves that, in fact they were better off in 2001 before the tax cuts occurred.
So did everyone receive a tax cut? Yes. But when you have skewed rate decreases it introduces inequities into the system.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Aug 13 2004, 10:10 PM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Aug 13 2004, 06:48 PM)
Aquilla
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
QUOTE
There's an old saying out there that "figures lie and liars figure". Well, I'm not calling anyone a liar here, but there is some factual information left out of CJ's post from the article cited.
From that article....
QUOTE
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.
So, everyone is paying less in taxes and this is, according to the Washington Post, "stark"? The only people who would consider the idea of everyone paying less in taxes as "stark" are the tax and spend liberals who think they know better how to spend our money than we do. In other words, people like John Kerry and his shills at the Washington Post who characterize an across the board tax cut as "stark
I fail to see where your quote from the same article is any different. In fact it is the same.
Your quote for the upper 1 percent is a 20% drop
Your quote for the average or $51,500 is a 9.3 drop
Your quote for the poorest taxpayer is a 16 drop
So in this instance the rich got the LARGEST % drop.
Now compare this to Cube Jockey's example or quote from same article
QUOTE
The Congressional Budget Office released a report today and the Washington Post wrote this article - Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
QUOTE
Percentage of Federal Taxes
Avg Income 2001 2004
$14,900 1.2 1.1
$34,200 5.3 5.2
$51,500 10.3 10.5
$75,600 18.7 19.5
$182,700 64.4 63.5
Not on the chart but in the article:
QUOTE
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
In this table is the percentage of Federal Taxes paid
Which is different than your table of reduction in taxes.
What Cube Jockey is saying that after all different bracket got a reduction in taxes the Richest got the biggest % tax break and thus are paying a smaller % of taxes overall.
Thus your own chart that you quoted backs up Cube Jockey's analysis.
This is all basis or elementary in any high school or college course in Economics or Finance but without all the little SMILEY FACES.
Next time your make light of facts or a persons opinion make sure you are correct.
No SMILEY FACES.
Actually, what I am saying Popeye47, is that everyone is paying less in taxes. It doesn't even take a high school course in economics to know this is a good thing. Unless, of course, you happen to believe, as John Kerry does, that you know better how to spend other people's money than they do. I happen to disagree with that philosophy.
And, if you have a problem with the smiley faces, I suggest you take it up with Mike. He made them available, I just use them.
But you were responding to Cube Jockey's statement of
QUOTE
(Cube Jockey @ Aug 13 2004, 04:54 PM)
I think we have some smoking gun evidence here finally to prove that the Bush tax cuts did in fact benefit the extremely wealthy far more than the middle class, in fact the middle class tax burden increased
That had nothing to do with everyone paying less taxes.
That had everything to do with the extremely wealthy benefiting more then the middle class.
And yes, guns are made to shoot (for protection) but not to just shoot anyone just for the hell of it. But what the hell, S&W made guns so that is a good enough reason to use them.
Welcome to AD drewyorktimes,
While I'm ever so sure one of our incredibly responsive and dutiful Mods will send you a hello and point you to the Rules, I'd like to just say welcome.
And now to the posting:
I have noticed a somewhat stark representation by conservatives on the discussions about the tax cuts and the economy. I understand Aqulla's point: Everyone got something. What do they want, an instant millionaire kit in the mail?
There is a tradition of hard work in this country (GWB is learning about hard work for the first time I think
) And it seems like some people want to attack those who have done the hard work and benefitted.
However, I would ask the conservatives to look past that for a second and look at something with me:
Because I have a serious phobia for math I'm going to simplify it (and to make the argument shorter). Even if the tax relief was even across the board lets look at the reality of living in this country. If I make $1 million this year, my friend makes $50 grand and his son makes $25 grand lets see how an even tax break works out for the three of us:
If we each benefit, say, a 5% cut in what we pay on yearly income then:
I get $50 grand more of my money to do with as I please.
My friend gets $2,500 more.
..and his son gets $1,250 ...
I'm not going to tell you that the two smaller amounts are to scoff at, but the reality is that those amounts, proportionally speaking, have far less utility than does the return of the millionaire.
Yes, I am arguing utility here. The average American has over $8,000 in credit card debt alone! some simple facts here It is ridiculous to think that the tax relief is enough to get most Americans consuming wildly. The wealthy simply will have little or no change in lifestyle due to their added money. for the poor it might mean some college classes, car payments, money to start a new business, etc...
It's a question of greatest good for the greatest number of people. I truly believe that, if and only if we NEED the additional funds, they should be taken from those who are affected least by their loss. This SHOULD NOT be permanent policy. Yet I think that stable government, low national debt, and low inflation, in the end, create a situation that is most fruitful for the wealthy anyway. This is no excuse for sluggish bureaucracy, redundant government programs, and special interests... However that is the stuff of both major parties.
While I'm ever so sure one of our incredibly responsive and dutiful Mods will send you a hello and point you to the Rules, I'd like to just say welcome.
And now to the posting:
I have noticed a somewhat stark representation by conservatives on the discussions about the tax cuts and the economy. I understand Aqulla's point: Everyone got something. What do they want, an instant millionaire kit in the mail?
There is a tradition of hard work in this country (GWB is learning about hard work for the first time I think
) And it seems like some people want to attack those who have done the hard work and benefitted.However, I would ask the conservatives to look past that for a second and look at something with me:
Because I have a serious phobia for math I'm going to simplify it (and to make the argument shorter). Even if the tax relief was even across the board lets look at the reality of living in this country. If I make $1 million this year, my friend makes $50 grand and his son makes $25 grand lets see how an even tax break works out for the three of us:
If we each benefit, say, a 5% cut in what we pay on yearly income then:
I get $50 grand more of my money to do with as I please.
My friend gets $2,500 more.
..and his son gets $1,250 ...
I'm not going to tell you that the two smaller amounts are to scoff at, but the reality is that those amounts, proportionally speaking, have far less utility than does the return of the millionaire.
Yes, I am arguing utility here. The average American has over $8,000 in credit card debt alone! some simple facts here It is ridiculous to think that the tax relief is enough to get most Americans consuming wildly. The wealthy simply will have little or no change in lifestyle due to their added money. for the poor it might mean some college classes, car payments, money to start a new business, etc...
It's a question of greatest good for the greatest number of people. I truly believe that, if and only if we NEED the additional funds, they should be taken from those who are affected least by their loss. This SHOULD NOT be permanent policy. Yet I think that stable government, low national debt, and low inflation, in the end, create a situation that is most fruitful for the wealthy anyway. This is no excuse for sluggish bureaucracy, redundant government programs, and special interests... However that is the stuff of both major parties.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 13 2004, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Aug 13 2004, 07:10 PM)
Actually, what I am saying Popeye47, is that everyone is paying less in taxes. It doesn't even take a high school course in economics to know this is a good thing. Unless, of course, you happen to believe, as John Kerry does, that you know better how to spend other people's money than they do. I happen to disagree with that philosophy.
There is a difference between getting a tax cut, as your figures showed and stating that your tax cuts "benefit the middle class the most".
The chart shows the percentage of the total federal income tax each income bracket pays -- not what their tax rate is, but how much they contribute to the collective kitty.
It shows that the poorest americans are contributing slightly less to the total federal tax base. Middle-class citizens are contributing more to the tax base and the richest Americans are contributing significantly less to the tax base.
For the past several years the Bush administration has vehemently denied that the richest Americans benefited the most from the tax cuts, this data proves they did. The Bush administration has also claimed repeatedly that the middle-class tax payers benefit the most. This data also disproves that, in fact they were better off in 2001 before the tax cuts occurred.
So did everyone receive a tax cut? Yes. But when you have skewed rate decreases it introduces inequities into the system.
I started out my previous post with the old saying about figures lying and liars figuring and what that means is that one can pretty much manipulate figures to say whatever they want them to say. That is the case here and I believe that is what the Bush campaign is saying about this latest CBO "study". The flaw in this study is that it deals with income "classes" of people, not the individual people within each class and the class sizes are widely disproportionate in their size. It would be like me making the argument that white people pay a far higher percentage of the tax burden as a class than do black people. And, of course that would be true, the class is larger. So, in order to arrive a a meaningful number one would need to normalize the numbers based on the size of each class.
But, it's not even as simple as that because unlike one's race which remains a constant, people change income classes. A reflection of that data is not contained in the article about this report. So, the explanation for example of the increase in "tax burden" for the $75,000 range might indeed be a reflection that people have moved from the $50,000 range into that range and there are more of them collectively paying taxes than there used to be. Maybe? I don't know, we don't know that at least based on this article and I haven't read the actual report.
My point here is that one has to be very careful when one starts throwing statistics out there without a context for those statistics. I think this is also the point of the Bush campaign - the answer depends on the question asked.
I see your point Aquilla. Yes, us middle class folks did in fact pay less in taxes than in 2001. And that is the ONLY point you get out of this. Here are the conclusions that prevail:
First, the Republican tax cuts for the top 1% more than DOUBLED those of the middle class. 20% tax decreases to the middle class would likely mean a LOT more than 20% for those already in the top 1%. But then, the "have more"'s are part of "the base". Gotta keep those folks happier, right?
Second, the tax cuts shifted the burden of tax revenues from the top upper to upper-middle class to the middle class. So the middle class got the worst tax cut and now is shouldering more of the tax revenue burden. Yeah, that's equity for you from the Republicans. Can ya feel the compassion?
But then, I guess the tax cut and spend conservatives are showing their fiscal prudence as well as indicated by our record debt levels. Frankly, I would have rather Uncle Sam kept the money and stop leveraging our future. Fiscal conservatism has been a myth in the Republican Party since the Reagan Era. So I think you can drop the "spend" from your "tax and spend" label now. 30+ years demonstrate pretty clearly which party has demonstated any levels of fiscal responsibility. At worst, both parties have demonstrated an affinity for pork.
Doc
First, the Republican tax cuts for the top 1% more than DOUBLED those of the middle class. 20% tax decreases to the middle class would likely mean a LOT more than 20% for those already in the top 1%. But then, the "have more"'s are part of "the base". Gotta keep those folks happier, right?
Second, the tax cuts shifted the burden of tax revenues from the top upper to upper-middle class to the middle class. So the middle class got the worst tax cut and now is shouldering more of the tax revenue burden. Yeah, that's equity for you from the Republicans. Can ya feel the compassion?
But then, I guess the tax cut and spend conservatives are showing their fiscal prudence as well as indicated by our record debt levels. Frankly, I would have rather Uncle Sam kept the money and stop leveraging our future. Fiscal conservatism has been a myth in the Republican Party since the Reagan Era. So I think you can drop the "spend" from your "tax and spend" label now. 30+ years demonstrate pretty clearly which party has demonstated any levels of fiscal responsibility. At worst, both parties have demonstrated an affinity for pork.
Doc
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Aug 14 2004, 12:07 AM)
I see your point Aquilla. Yes, us middle class folks did in fact pay less in taxes than in 2001. And that is the ONLY point you get out of this. Here are the conclusions that prevail:
First, the Republican tax cuts for the top 1% more than DOUBLED those of the middle class. 20% tax decreases to the middle class would likely mean a LOT more than 20% for those already in the top 1%. But then, the "have more"'s are part of "the base". Gotta keep those folks happier, right?
Second, the tax cuts shifted the burden of tax revenues from the top upper to upper-middle class to the middle class. So the middle class got the worst tax cut and now is shouldering more of the tax revenue burden. Yeah, that's equity for you from the Republicans. Can ya feel the compassion?
But then, I guess the tax cut and spend conservatives are showing their fiscal prudence as well as indicated by our record debt levels. Frankly, I would have rather Uncle Sam kept the money and stop leveraging our future. Fiscal conservatism has been a myth in the Republican Party since the Reagan Era. So I think you can drop the "spend" from your "tax and spend" label now. 30+ years demonstrate pretty clearly which party has demonstated any levels of fiscal responsibility. At worst, both parties have demonstrated an affinity for pork.
Doc
First, the Republican tax cuts for the top 1% more than DOUBLED those of the middle class. 20% tax decreases to the middle class would likely mean a LOT more than 20% for those already in the top 1%. But then, the "have more"'s are part of "the base". Gotta keep those folks happier, right?
Second, the tax cuts shifted the burden of tax revenues from the top upper to upper-middle class to the middle class. So the middle class got the worst tax cut and now is shouldering more of the tax revenue burden. Yeah, that's equity for you from the Republicans. Can ya feel the compassion?
But then, I guess the tax cut and spend conservatives are showing their fiscal prudence as well as indicated by our record debt levels. Frankly, I would have rather Uncle Sam kept the money and stop leveraging our future. Fiscal conservatism has been a myth in the Republican Party since the Reagan Era. So I think you can drop the "spend" from your "tax and spend" label now. 30+ years demonstrate pretty clearly which party has demonstated any levels of fiscal responsibility. At worst, both parties have demonstrated an affinity for pork.
Doc
I'll go along with you on the pork comment, both parties are guilty of that. Reagan attempted to address that problem with the Line item veto, but that got shot down and the spending habits have been