The W
Views: 100843551
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.11.14 1727
The W - Current Events & Politics - RINO
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2006 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3866 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88651,00.html

Honestly, why can't we have an honest debate about tax cuts in this country without so much emotionalism? And if this legislation is so popular in the senate, can't we just call it a "gift" instead of a "rebate", because you can't give rebates to people that paid no income tax in the first place. Of 50 Republicans, 48 just voted yes on a $400/child welfare check. Remember when this party had principles? I guess it's just political strategy, but there's no point in winning if you're not going to push the ideology the party is based on. It seems that "Tax cuts for the rich" is now a euphemism for "Tax cuts for those that pay taxes." I can't wait to hear Hannity call this proof that Bush is a "compassionate" conservative tomorrow.
Promote this thread!
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3884 days
#2 Posted on
And if this legislation is so popular in the senate, can't we just call it a "gift" instead of a "rebate", because you can't give rebates to people that paid no income tax in the first place.

They pay plenty of income tax. It's just that all of their tax comes in the form of payroll taxes. A tax credit for them is perfectly valid.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3866 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Most low-income wage earners with children under age 17 come out ahead even after payroll taxes are factored in. The earned-income credit, which can be as high as 40% of wages for a single parent or a couple with two kids, can cover the Social Security tax bite and then some. In effect, the EIC functions as a child credit just for the working poor, and it can be a good deal more generous than the $1,000 middle-class credit just signed into law.

Let's talk for a second about the tax "credit". It currently has a threshold which is 10% of earned income over $10,500. For instance, a single parent earning $15,000 with one child would use part of the $1,000 credit to wipe out a small income-tax liability ($190) and get an additional $450.

Under current law, the threshold percentage goes to 15% in 2005. The bill originally passed by the Senate would have raised that limit right away, so that our single parent of one child would have had a refund of $675. The senate just signed this in now.

So, the question is, Godking...if this "credit" more than erases the income tax AND payroll tax of a parent, and leaves him with a 450 dollar refund....what can you call it other than income redistribution? The problem with this bill is that refundable rebates are really just another form of welfare spending.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1302 days
Last activity: 1099 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
The tax system of giving "tax cuts" is, in fact, income redistribution, plain and simple.

All of this does is fuel my desire to eliminate the current tax structure and replace it with a flat tax. Hell, at that point we might be able to eliminate FICA taxes and have one income tax everybody pays into.



"You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't."
- Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4089 days
Last activity: 4088 days
#5 Posted on
Ah I see. The 39% tax-bracket people (36% now, I think) who make hundreds of thousands a year deserve tax cuts. But someone working 60 hour weeks down at the wal mart just to stay afloat doesn't deserve squat?


How exactly do you justify that to yourself?


Republicans are so fond of those stupid "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do?) situations when it comes to many issues, but they're mysteriously quiet about that when it comes to taxes. What do YOU think Jesus would do? Would he give money to someone who already HAS, or would he rather help out the truly needy? Ccompassionate conservatism my ass. There's nothing compassionate about enriching the wealthy while ignoring the plight of the less well-off.


I supported Bush at first, but the longer this guy is in power the more I see that he's absolutely full of shit. Stupid cokehead.

(edited by -proletarian- on 7.6.03 1202)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1302 days
Last activity: 1099 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
It's easy to justify. There is nothing fair about taxing people at a higher tax rate because they make more money. Pure and simple


    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    What do YOU think Jesus would do?

Probably lowered taxes and cut government programs so that the poorer folks didn't have to be on the damn government yoke and so they could make a living.

(edited by Grimis on 8.6.03 0928)


"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3884 days
#7 Posted on
There is nothing fair about taxing people at a higher tax rate because they make more money.

The counter argument to this is as follows: the people who make more money have benefited more from living in the country and thus deserve to pay a little more back then the poor schmoe working at Wal-Mart.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4089 days
Last activity: 4088 days
#8 Posted on
"It's easy to justify. There is nothing fair about taxing people at a higher tax rate because they make more money. Pure and simple"


Refer to Godking's response. But also, it isn't purely a question of fairness. Life isn't fair. But I honestly think that it's a question of human decency that someone who has so much contribute more to society in the form of taxes than someone who isn't able to. That wealthy person has gained so much more from our society than your average Joe taxpayer, shouldn't he contribute a little more back?


When given the choice between higher taxes for the wealthy and no money for schools, medicare or other programs, I'll opt for the former over the latter anyday.
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3295 days
Last activity: 3295 days
#9 Posted on
Is it fair if you work your ass off your entire life to build yourself into a success and earn a lot of money only to have to pay more then some ignorant fuck, who blamed society for his lazyness and inability to make a good living?

I understand some people are less fortunate then others but please don't reward and promote ignorance by over-taxing people who actually made something of their lives.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3866 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    That wealthy person has gained so much more from our society than your average Joe taxpayer, shouldn't he contribute a little more back?


Right, because the wealthy person is only wealthy because of luck, not hard work. It's easy to justify redistribution schemes when you attribute success to luck.

If you are talking about working full-time, 50 or more weeks a year, then there are more people doing that in the top 5 percent of households than in the bottom 20 percent. As Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up. These are Census data, available on-line from the Current Population Survey, Table HINC-06.

While there are more than 19 million people working in households with incomes in the top 20 percent, there are fewer than 8 million people working in households in the bottom 20 percent. How much of an injustice is it that people who work get more money than people who don't work?

If you are talking about working full-time, 50 or more weeks a year, then there are more people doing that in the top 5 percent of households than in the bottom 20 percent. As Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up. These are Census data, available on-line from the Current Population Survey, Table HINC-06.

It may not be a breakthrough on the frontiers of economics to say that work pays, but it does. Among households in the bottom 20 percent in income, there are more than 13 million people who do not work at all and fewer than 8 million who do work, counting both full time and part time workers.

How do people live without working? Millions in the bottom 20 percent live on the money earned by other people who do work and whose income gets taxed to pay for the non-workers. In addition, more than 4 million families in the bottom fifth in income live on property income and nearly 6 million live on various forms of retirement income, including Social Security. (Table FINC-06)

How appalling is it that we give tax cuts to people that work?
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3884 days
#11 Posted on
Is it fair if you work your ass off your entire life to build yourself into a success and earn a lot of money only to have to pay more then some ignorant fuck, who blamed society for his lazyness and inability to make a good living?

One could just as easily flip your bias and ask if it's fair for some trust-fund playboy who's never worked a day in his life and has had everything set out for him to pay an equal share to an immigrant barber who speaks poor English with three kids. One's richness in no way equates to moral rectitude and it's simplistic to assign it thusly.

Furthermore, even in the case of people who did work hard to build themselves into successes without screwing people over - those successes did not come about in a vacuum. They came about as a result of living in an orderly, secure and free country of liberty - which is maintained by a tax base. They have profited more greatly than others by the existence of these conditions, therefore they should contribute more to the tax base.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1302 days
Last activity: 1099 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by godking
    One could just as easily flip your bias and ask if it's fair for some trust-fund playboy who's never worked a day in his life and has had everything set out for him to pay an equal share to an immigrant barber who speaks poor English with three kids.

And it's not...


    Originally posted by godking
    Furthermore, even in the case of people who did work hard to build themselves into successes without screwing people over - those successes did not come about in a vacuum. They came about as a result of living in an orderly, secure and free country of liberty - which is maintained by a tax base. They have profited more greatly than others by the existence of these conditions, therefore they should contribute more to the tax base.

So, liberals obviously want to promote a "Seperate but Equal" tax system that discrimiantes against the wealthy. As we know, "reverse discrimination" fixes everything!



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 35 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Originally posted by godking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One could just as easily flip your bias and ask if it's fair for some trust-fund playboy who's never worked a day in his life and has had everything set out for him to pay an equal share to an immigrant barber who speaks poor English with three kids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And it's not...


You're really going to have to explain to me why the GOP's #1 priority seems to be the elimination of the inheritance tax then. If they advocated treating inhereted money as lottery winnings, it would go a hell of a lot farther in convincing me that they actually believe their rhetoric.

Earned income should be taxed less across the board, and unearned income taxed more. Combined with a few other things that half the folks on this board would probably label "Communist" and we'd be good to go.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4089 days
Last activity: 4088 days
#14 Posted on
Not everyone who is wealthy is wealthy because of hard work.

Not everyone who is poor is lazy and/or ignorant.

Life isn't that simple. Matters such as this would be a lot easier to resolve if it were, but we're not fortunate enough to live in such a black and white world. Some wealthy people deserve their wealth, while some do not. Conversely, some poor people deserve to be where they are, while again, some do not. Blanket declerations about a person's worth derived from their income level isn't a valid argument, it's just empty rhetoric.

I'm a conservative. I believe that government should only be involved in areas where it can benefit society, and that it should strive to do the most that it can for society while using as little of our money as possible. However, I also believe that a civil society is one that recognizes that people who have benifited most from it have a moral obligation to give back to the system which facilitated their success. Without government, there can be no order, and without order there cannot be propserity. Those who prosper under our system owe a debt to it.

Yes, most wealthy people got there through their own hard work and perseverance, and not government action. However, that doesn't mean that they don't owe society anything.........nothing exists in a vacuum.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3884 days
#15 Posted on
So, liberals obviously want to promote a "Seperate but Equal" tax system that discrimiantes against the wealthy.

Go take a look at economic history over the past eighty years. When a tax system is fairly implemented, a progressive tax structure (one in which tax rates grow higher as income increases) runs hand-in-hand with enhanced growth of GDP. A regressive tax structure (one in which tax rate are flat) stifles economic growth over the long term, because ultimately economic growth comes from the lower classes because they put money directly back into the economy on a far greater scale than the richer classes do. And incidentally, the US has a regressive structure right now - tax cuts for the wealthy have created a regressive result under a progressive system, and with the dividend tax cut and the others proposed in the most recent round, the wealthy will be paying less than the poor. By a lot. Warren Buffett wrote an excellent article about it.

Anyway, the United States is the best example going of this - its periods of biggest economic growth were coupled with a progressive tax structure (1945-1965, 1993-2000) and its weakest with a regressive structure (1929-1936, 1972-77, 2001-present). Food for thought.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3866 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
You left out 83-89, when the growth rate was 3.8%. During the Reagan years, revenues to the federal government were doubled over 8 years via cutting taxes, median family income went up $4,000, unemployment dropped dramatically, and about 20 million jobs were created. And it was done without a microchip boom that created an incredible amount of wealth.

To say that the tax structure was "regressive" during the 70s is absurd, the top income tax rate was 70%. The economy didn't recover from Carter hell until Reagan cut the tax rates by so much.

Two of the greatest economic booms in the history of this country (60s, 80s) were results of massive tax reductions. Just food for thought.

" ... it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." --John F. Kennedy.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3884 days
#17 Posted on
You left out 83-89, when the growth rate was 3.8%. During the Reagan years, revenues to the federal government were doubled over 8 years via cutting taxes,

One of the great conservative myths.

Yes, Reagan cut taxes - his first year in office, as part of the supply-side economics plan he had run on. It didn't do a damn thing to help the economy and in fact the worst part of that 1979-82 recession was the tail end of it. In 1982, Reagan raised taxes dramatically and spent on defense like the porkbarrel was going to run out of pigs and the two effects combined drove the American economy back into shape. He didn't try cutting taxes again until 1986-87, which was when the second (but far more minor) 80s recession (remember "Black Monday"?) happened for about ten months, and he raised government spending again to get out of that one.

And then Bush I took office, cut taxes, and the economy went to shit - until he raised taxes in 1991-92, and Bill Clinton reaped the benefits without having to actually do anything.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3866 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Outside of Paul Krugman (the only known economist that hates the free market), I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an economist that actually thinks that Bush's tax hike was good for the economy.

This debate on whether the tax cuts lead to the economic growth could go on for years, so it's really not worth having. If you'd like to see the straight up numbers in charts and graphs without spin, this is the Cato executive summary.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

As a side note however, outside of Reagan, you're forgetting the massively succesful Kennedy cut that lead to several years of growth at an annual rate of 5% or higher.

(edited by Michrome on 8.6.03 2328)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1302 days
Last activity: 1099 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    You're really going to have to explain to me why the GOP's #1 priority seems to be the elimination of the inheritance tax then.

It has a lot to with the fact that the inheritance tax does not hurt the weatlhy. It rally hurts farmes and small business owners who want to make sure the business or farm stays viable and is passed onto the next generation. Because of the real, perceived, or assessed value of the business, farm, land, etc, the tax rate is ridiculously high, which leads to farmers having to sell their inherited farms to coporate farmers and to small local businesses closing to let in the large box/chain stores everybody laments.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Anyway, the United States is the best example going of this - its periods of biggest economic growth were coupled with a progressive tax structure (1945-1965, 1993-2000) and its weakest with a regressive structure (1929-1936, 1972-77, 2001-present). Food for thought.

Uh, 1929-1936 wasn't exectly a regressive system. Tax rates on the wealthy continued to rise, along with tax rates on the middle class which made more and more people poor. When FDR swooped in and doubled the size of government, things just got worse. Higher taxes plus more government spending led to bad things circa 1937. If it weren't for the war things would've bene much much worse.



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Hope For Californians, Entertainment for the Rest of Us
Next thread: Backpedaling
Previous thread: US pulling troops out of Korean DMZ!?
(2006 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Just out of curiosity: Would you say that a person selected at random, handed this single message and asked to guess at the race of the author, would probably guess correctly?
The W - Current Events & Politics - RINORegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.141 seconds.