Why should I be happy with the Bush tax cuts?

[madfoot]

As a working class American, should I ask the government to cut my family's taxes, or should I be happy with them cutting theirs?

[SWATH]

As an American you should be irate that the government can lay claim to anyone's wealth.

[madfoot]

It's a misdirect, though. For all the work we do rallying against taxes, it's the rich who benefit from it.

[Melissa]

It's a misdirect, though. For all the work we do rallying against taxes, it's the rich who benefit from it.
and the poor when they get the Earned Income Credit so only the Middle class get hurt

[madfoot]

I never understood the "it's great to be poor" rhetoric.

[erowe1]

As a working class American, should I ask the government to cut my family's taxes, or should I be happy with them cutting theirs?

I don't understand the question.

Should you be happy with them cutting whose taxes?

[madfoot]

Top 2%.

[ItsTime]

Top 2%.

Are all people equal?

[madfoot]

Are all people equal?

Care to explain?

[erowe1]

Top 2%.

What does top 2% have to do with the Bush tax cuts? Everyone who paid income taxes had their tax rates cut in the Bush tax cuts, and the lower income earners got bigger tax cuts than the higher income earners did.

[SWATH]

Whose money does the top 2% of income earners belong to? You? The government? You should defend the right of the richest man in America to keep what he has earned just as you would defend your own right to keep what you have earned. There should be no qualifier in how your rights are applied to you property.

[gls]

As a member of the "working class" (as am I) you should be most concerned about the out-of-control deficit spending, which results in a brutal inflation tax which is only now really starting to kick in in the form of higher food and energy prices.

The wealthy won't be as affected as much by the inflation tax but they already pay the vast, vast majority of direct taxes. They're also the ones who create jobs and drive economic growth.

[Melissa]

I never understood the "it's great to be poor" rhetoric.

It is not that it is great to be poor but they dont pay as much or any federal Taxes as they get them all back plus the earned income credit. I never said it was great to be poor please dont say things I never said but you were talking about taxes and said only the rich benefit. The poor benefit too, no it does not make them rich but they do benefit.

[madfoot]

Whose money does the top 2% of income earners belong to? You? The government? You should defend the right of the richest man in America to keep what he has earned just as you would defend your own right to keep what you have earned. There should be no qualifier in how your rights are applied to you property.

Why should I? He doesn't defend mine.

[trey4sports]

Why should I? He doesn't defend mine.



He wants to take your money?

[VBRonPaulFan]

It's a misdirect, though. For all the work we do rallying against taxes, it's the rich who benefit from it.

You are using the dumbest argument based on liberal nonsense that doesn't reflect reality in the slightest. If you had even done the slightest bit of homework you'd have seen that the top 1% pay something like 1/3 of the total tax burden. The bottom 50% of income earners in this country have an effective tax rate of 0%. Tax cuts cannot help the poorest in this country because they do not pay any income tax into the system (on average).

Go to www.irs.gov and type in 'tax statistics' in the search box and do some research. We have a wholly progressive tax system, with the tax paid as a percentage of income ramping up progressively (until you hit people making like 5+ million/year... their income drops off slightly because of the lower capital gains tax rate).

Also, it's only the rich who benefit from it? The bottom 50% (you know, with that effective 0% tax rate) don't benefit from getting HUGE income tax refunds at the end of the year because of the child tax credit, earned income credit, make work pay credit, misc. education credits, dependent care credit, etc? It's a transfer of wealth from the people who pay a significant portion of their income into the system to people who don't. The entire scheme is unfair, why do you expect it to be fair to you?

[madfoot]

He wants to take your money?

They already are.

[SWATH]

Why should I? He doesn't defend mine.

Because you are a person and so is he and you both have the same rights regardless of the disparity of bank accounts. This is basic stuff.

[VBRonPaulFan]

PS - you should be happy with any tax cuts. They help offset the other ways you get screwed with any new form of tax that springs up to help pay for ongoing BS.

[erowe1]

Why should I?

For one thing, because you want the federal government to have less revenue, so that it can do less.

You do want that, don't you?

[madfoot]

You are using the dumbest argument based on liberal nonsense that doesn't reflect reality in the slightest. If you had even done the slightest bit of homework you'd have seen that the top 1% pay something like 1/3 of the total tax burden.

I heard a statistic the other day that they own 1/3rd of the money, so this is fine and not disturbing at all.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I heard a statistic the other day that they own 1/3rd of the money, so this is fine and not disturbing at all.

Ok, so by this logic you should be irate that people that earn 10% of the total income aren't paying 10% of the tax liability, correct? In that case, you should be pissed at some poor people, bro.

[madfoot]

I don't support a flat tax.

[erowe1]

I heard a statistic the other day that they own 1/3rd of the money, so this is fine and not disturbing at all.

If that's the way you look at it, then you should be happy with the Bush tax cuts. Because after the Bush tax cuts the highest income earners bore a greater share of the total income tax than they did before the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html

[erowe1]

I don't support a flat tax.

Again, if you like progressive taxation, then you should like the Bush tax cuts, since they resulted in a tax rate schedule that was more progressive than it had previously been.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I don't support a flat tax.

oh, but you support someone paying a flat tax as long as they're doing better than you? get out of here with this inconsistent crap. the entire tax system was set up to be a redistributive scheme that allows politicians to give favors to friends and help them with their social engineering experiments. be pissed at the income tax system in general, don't take offense to a small subset of taxpayers at either end or in between. the system operates on the premise that the government owns all the money you make during the year, they just let you keep some of it.

[Elwar]

Taxation is force. The Bush tax cuts were a step in the right direction on a mile long walk.

[madfoot]

oh, but you support someone paying a flat tax as long as they're doing better than you? get out of here with this inconsistent crap. the entire tax system was set up to be a redistributive scheme that allows politicians to give favors to friends and help them with their social engineering experiments. be pissed at the income tax system in general, don't take offense to a small subset of taxpayers at either end or in between. the system operates on the premise that the government owns all the money you make during the year, they just let you keep some of it.

I agree, most government programs function as a reverse robin hood, but I disagree with the idea that politicians are in it to help out their evil homeless buddies and union thugs because, you know, the working class are not their friends.

[Elwar]

I agree, most government programs function as a reverse robin hood, but I disagree with the idea that politicians are in it to help out their evil homeless buddies and union thugs because, you know, the working class are not their friends.

Government programs don't work. They just don't. Funding failure is asinine.

[trey4sports]

I agree, most government programs function as a reverse robin hood, but I disagree with the idea that politicians are in it to help out their evil homeless buddies and union thugs because, you know, the working class are not their friends.



It's easy being generous with other peoples money

[erowe1]

but I disagree with the idea that politicians are in it to help out their evil homeless buddies and union thugs because, you know, the working class are not their friends.

Correct. When the politicians give freebies to homeless people and union thugs, it's not to help them. It's either to enslave them or to enslave someone else.

[madfoot]

Government programs don't work. They just don't. Funding failure is asinine.

the private sector could not have funded a project to send a man to the moon

[gls]

the private sector could not have funded a project to send a man to the moon

You've got that right. What a waste of money and manpower that was.

[erowe1]

the private sector could not have funded a project to send a man to the moon

Sure it could have. It probably wouldn't have, since there are more profitable (i.e. better) things to do with those resources. But it could have, and if it had, it would have done a better job than the government at less cost.

[SWATH]

a private company would not have funded a project to send a man to the moon

If it didn't it would have been because there was no value in doing it. That's the beauty of a free market, things that people want, happen, and things that people don't want don't happen, and the stupidity of government, it doesn't matter if you want it or not, they will use your money and do it anyway.

[Melissa]

the private sector could not have funded a project to send a man to the moon

Are you crazy are you saying that if Bill Gates wanted to fund this he would not have been able to. Remember Rockets used to made in peoples back yards http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-11/sd2001-11-001.shtml. The reason space flight has not gone further is because of the regulations and government abuse. If the private sector was allowed to create things in their back yard again then space flight would be much further along.

[jackers]

Why come here with other than honorable intentions and hide behind your statist beliefs? Just come clean and ask your questions, no need to pretend you are something you are not.

[madfoot]

Are you crazy are you saying that if Bill Gates wanted to fund this he would not have been able to. Remember Rockets used to made in peoples back yards http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-11/sd2001-11-001.shtml. The reason space flight has not gone further is because of the regulations and government abuse. If the private sector was allowed to create things in their back yard again then space flight would be much further along.

I bolded the important part.

And I take genuine offense to being called a statist. I butt heads on every political forum I go to, unfortunately. :(

[Melissa]

And why is that important if no one wanted it no one should fund it or do you believe if the government wants it it must be ok. What did we gain by a man walking on the moon? We still kill each other, steal from each other and now in deep debt and sinking fast but somehow the government getting a man on the moon was great with my money oh ok that makes sense

[BrendenR]

And I take genuine offense to being called a statist. I butt heads on every political forum I go to, unfortunately. :(

Because you are not slowing down to think about things and do your own research. So you don't have a philosophy to back up your statements.

If you had a coherent and well thought out post about why you believe the rich should be taxed more than everyone else, we could have a debate on the merits of your position, but we cannot when you post in once sentence quips.

JMHO

[erowe1]

And I take genuine offense to being called a statist.

OK. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this here is a flat out lie. You don't take offense to that and you know it.

[trey4sports]

I bolded the important part.

And I take genuine offense to being called a statist. I butt heads on every political forum I go to, unfortunately. :(




Ignore the ad hominems and pay close attention to the arguments we present. It might change your mind, and it might not but there is a reason we're so passionate about liberty!

[SWATH]

I bolded the important part.

And I take genuine offense to being called a statist. I butt heads on every political forum I go to, unfortunately. :(

You are always welcome here, I hope you stick around and learn.:)

[madfoot]

If that's the way you look at it, then you should be happy with the Bush tax cuts. Because after the Bush tax cuts the highest income earners bore a greater share of the total income tax than they did before the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html

Did the Bush tax cuts make taxes more progressive?
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/03/the-bush-tax-cu.html

When fully in effect, the tax cuts will boost after-tax income by more than 7 percent among households with incomes of more than $1 million, but just 2 percent among middle-income families... A progressive tax cut, like a progressive tax system, is one that reduces inequality. But, as these data show, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are widening the gap in after-tax incomes, which was historically large even before the tax cuts were enacted.

In 2010, when the tax cuts are fully in effect, the average household earning more than $1 million a year will receive $158,000 in tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center; the average middle-income household will receive $810.

The same CBO data cited by the tax cuts’ supporters show that the top 1 percent of households pay almost 5 percent less of their income in federal personal income taxes than they did in 2000, before the tax cuts. No other group got a tax cut nearly as large.

***

A progressive tax code is one that makes the distribution of after-tax income more equal than the distribution of pre-tax income.* (This definition is accepted by analysts across the political spectrum.)* Hence, one tax code is “more progressive” than another if it has a larger effect in reducing income inequality. For the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to have made the tax code more progressive, after-tax incomes would have to be less unequal today than if the tax cuts had not occurred.* In fact, the tax cuts have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal.

[erowe1]

A progressive tax code is one that makes the distribution of after-tax income more equal than the distribution of pre-tax income.* (This definition is accepted by analysts across the political spectrum.)*

Huh?

I guess I don't know if that's true. But if so, why would these analysts insist on using a definition other than what everybody else thinks it means?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive+tax
http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000218&edition=current&q=progressive%20tax&topicid=&result_number=1
http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-progressivetax.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

Using the normal definition, the Bush tax cuts, indeed made the tax code more progressive. That $810 the middle income family saved was a much higher percentage of their income taxes paid than the $158,000 saved by the $1 million/year income earner. It would be impossible for any serious tax cuts to do otherwise, since those middle income people pay so little in taxes as it is. You could totally eliminate their income taxes, that is cut them by 100% (and for all intents and purposes, the Bush tax cuts did that for the lower middle class), and reduce the amount the high income earners pay by just 10%, and the high income earners would see their after tax income increase by a greater percent because of how much more they were paying in taxes before the cuts, versus how little the lower income earners paid.

[iprice81]

Taxation is theft. If it was not theft it would be voluntary. And if it was voluntary then you could stop paying them. But you cant stop paying so it is theft

[madfoot]

And socialists think property is theft. Just because it fits well on a bumper sticker doesn't mean you're going to get anywhere by repeating it over and over again. >_>

[erowe1]

And socialists think property is theft. Just because it fits well on a bumper sticker doesn't mean you're going to get anywhere by repeating it over and over again. >_>

Fair enough. What does the word "theft" mean?

[silverhandorder]

Actually medfoot hit the nail on the head. Any argument with socialists that I have boils down to them thinking claiming property is use of force and goes against NAP (Non Agression Principle). I have yet successfully convince any of them that claiming property is not a form of aggression.

[erowe1]

Actually medfoot hit the nail on the head. Any argument with socialists that I have boils down to them thinking claiming property is use of force and goes against NAP (Non Agression Principle). I have yet successfully convince any of them that claiming property is not a form of aggression.

That's because they just dig in and pretend to believe something they know is wrong. They don't really think property is theft and they prove that with their actions every day. It's like arguing with someone who claims there's no absolute morality. You know they don't really believe it, and they know that you know they don't really believe it. But they avoid facing the consequences of admitting otherwise as long as the outwardly insist it's so.

[Stary Hickory]

As a die hard progressive I guess you shouldn't. Is reasoning really gonna work here?