DescentBB

[quote]â??Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you,â?

You do realize how disproportionatly the tax cuts have benifited the wealthiest 10%, dont you?

Then take it away from them and leave the middle class and the lower class folk alone.

Vader wrote:You do realize how disproportionatly the tax cuts have benifited the wealthiest 10%, dont you?

You do realize that the wealthiest 10% disproportionatly pay the most taxes don't you?

Vader wrote:You do realize how disproportionatly the tax cuts have benifited the wealthiest 10%, dont you?

A tax cut doesn't benefit anyone. It simply reduces the amount of your own money you pay to the government.

Now, if the "tax cut" was government money that the government just printed up and gave away to help people then you might have a point.
But then we wouldn't call it a "tax cut" because that would be confusing, we would call it welfare and currently welfare already disproportionately benefits the poorest 10%.

Words mean things.

just a note to things percent-wise
80% of australian beer is drunk by only 10% of the population [true]
[sorry for the side-step]
cheers
rij

You do realize how disproportionatly the tax cuts have benifited reduced the undue burden on the wealthiest 10%, dont you?

I once read an interesting set of statistics -- essentially, they showed the percentage of income given to charities by Republicans was higher than the percentage of income given to charities by Democrats making the same amount (make sure you catch this bit about "making the same amount".) But we all know Democrats support more government social programs than Republicans -- which, by the way, will be paid for mostly by the taxes of Republicans. The moral of the story: Republicans are generous with their money, while Democrats are generous with Republicans' money.

(For those of you who are fuming mad at my half-joke... take a deep breath, laugh, and go away.)

The wealthiest 10% pays something like 75% of their income, directly or indirectly, to the government. Those at the lower end of things give progressively less. My parents give about 40-50% of their total income. People in the lowest brackets *GET* money. My sister is an example of this. How is a tax cut going to benefit these people?

That was actually a very good way to put it, Lothar. Anyway, Clinton gets points from me for her honesty. It's a rare liberal pol that will come right out and be so blunt.

I got an extra $3.25 per week for all my tax reductions. All the politicians, dems and repubs roughly got what, thousands upon thousands back. And the ultra rich? Millions. Hey that's nice, I'm glad this country is so far in debt now just so the ultra weathly can have another rolls. :0

and no matter how you measure it (per capita, as a percentage of income, etc.), the ultra-rich are still doing more than you are to reduce the deficit (especially the ones who are calling for reduced government spending.)

Oh, and if you pay attention to what I said above: yeah, the ultra-rich might get millions to your $3.25 -- but chances are, they'll give more of it to charity than you will. So quit your whining.

Well, the common good to me would be the record federal deficit. Down with the bush tax loan.

but to me, the federal deficit isn't a priority with respect to the common good. Cutting federal spending, and allowing individuals to care for each other, is.

yeah lothar, but your lovebug party can't pass it's budget because it doesn't want to restrict its spending. im glad to see at least some republicans stand up and dont follow the bush wagon. what makes you think i dont give money to charity?

Birdseye wrote:Well, the common good to me would be the record federal deficit. Down with the bush tax loan.

Paying it off would be only good if future congresses couldn't start a new tab.

A paid off debt is a good sign to start stupid spending again.

"Paying it off would be only good if future congresses couldn't start a new tab"

Well, I partly agree with you. It's dangerous, but deficit spending does play a role in smoothing out the business cycle when we hit a depression. Unfortunately, the government ideally would save during times of boom (instead of spending it all, thinking this boom is going to last forever like the 90s) for busts.

"A paid off debt is a good sign to start stupid spending again. "

So what is your solution? Just keep taking out loans until our credit status falls in the toilet?

"the ultra-rich might get millions to your $3.25 -- but chances are, they'll give more of it to charity than you will. So quit your whining"

That's because they have more disposable income. Of course they give to charity more! If you want to throw the "charity" card into the mix, the amount refunded by the tax loan is actually going to be more efficiently spent on the good of the whole country if it stays in the government's hands. Rich people don't spend all their money on charity.

I am fine with tax cuts that favor the wealthy, as long as we have offsetting spending cuts. In a time of a depression however, tax cuts for the wealthy look rather silly, especially when we have to borrow to do them. In a recession it is the low income citizens who need the immediate relief, not the rich people (unless you've bought into Voodoo Economics, a totally unproven let's give the rich more money theory). Smoothing out the business cycle is actually primarily aimed at the poorest and middle class citizens, who feel the bumps of the cycle the most.

Birdseye wrote:That's because they have more disposable income. Of course they give to charity more!

Maybe you should re-read the "no matter how you measure it" point (that is, they give more both in a raw amount, and in proportion to income.)

the amount refunded by the tax loan is actually going to be more efficiently spent on the good of the whole country if it stays in the government's hands.

The government should not have the money in the first place, so the fact that it *may* do more good in their hands is irrelevant.

In a time of a depression however, tax cuts for the wealthy look rather silly

And yet we're coming out of the depression... which, of course, you attribute to the "business cycle" rather than to the tax cuts. And, of course, by "business cycle" you mean "it's something I don't understand", meaning it very well could be the tax cuts anyway ;)

So, what's my solution?

Cut taxes. Force the government to cut spending (because eventually they run up against the edge of their credit limit.) Once government spending is sufficiently low, cut taxes again. Repeat until the government is only providing services it should actually provide (infrastructure, law enforcement, etc.)

Hillary's solution is to raise taxes for the "common good". My solution is to lower taxes for the "common good". We can both play Orwell's game :)

Zuruck wrote:I got an extra $3.25 per week for all my tax reductions. All the politicians, dems and repubs roughly got what, thousands upon thousands back. And the ultra rich? Millions. Hey that's nice, I'm glad this country is so far in debt now just so the ultra weathly can have another rolls. :0

Ummm...you have to work to get money back

Birdseye, it's not voodoo economics, it's "trickle-down" economics. The rich make, then spend, huge amounts of money. That money goes to business owners. The business owners pay their workers. The workers buy things. At all stages, taxes are being paid. At the higher levels, they pay about 60%+ in taxes. At the lowest levels, the poor get a tax refund much greater than they actually paid in taxes. How is this unfair?

I work every single day. The funny thing is, I pay my taxes just fine. I would rather have a sound system in washington that uses tax money correctly. I don't ask for any of my money back. I enjoy driving on nice roads, going to parks, doing all sorts of things. I work hard for my money but you know what, it's not life and death. You fricken Republicans are so selfish that you dont even think about anything else other than how to pad your pockets just a little more. How many more bibles can you buy now Lothar that you have some extra cash?

Zuruck, if I was only interested in my own pockets I'd have voted for Al Gore and I'd vote for Kerrey because they are the ones who want to throw me a few bucks for my vote. I don't make enough to get one of those mythical 'rich guy tax cuts'.

I look to the bigger picture when I consider where my vote is going, even if it costs a little more up front.

IMO, the government should not be the steward of your money. YOU know how it can be spent on YOU or CHARITY much better than the government does. Enough said.

The trickle down effect works like this: The rich get more money from tax breaks, and then they piss on the rest of us.

Trickle down theory has one huge, gaping flaw. It assumes that the rich who benifit are going to be loose with their money in some way. The thing is, if they were loose with their money, they wouldnt be rich in the first place. When you think of a rich person, do you think of a do-gooder who throws his money at everything and helps everyone he can just because he has the funds to do it with? Hell no! You think of a tightwad who would sooner sue you for spilling coffee on him by accident than help you pay your sick grandmas cancer bills. The rich are tightwads.

Piss on them. And piss on "trickle down" economics. The worst economic theory ever.

Zuruck wrote:what makes you think i dont give money to charity?

Zuruck wrote:How many more bibles can you buy now Lothar that you have some extra cash?

Funny juxtaposition of quotes -- first, you don't want me assuming things about what you give to charity (though my statement was statistically valid), and then you go and assume things about my use of my tax break... way to be consistant.

Vader wrote:When you think of a rich person, do you think of a do-gooder who throws his money at everything and helps everyone he can just because he has the funds to do it with? Hell no! You think of a tightwad...

Well, when *I* think of a rich person, I think of one I actually know. How about you? Are you speaking from experience, or are you just stereotyping people you don't know?

None of the rich people I know are tightwads who'll sue you over trivial stuff. They're not even all careful with their money -- some of them got there because they had extraordinary skills, not because they managed money well. On average, though, they're pretty free with their money -- one, for example, took his entire professor salary this year and set up a scholarship fund, while another puts some of her own salary into funding a program to put grad students into elementary school classrooms as specialist teachers.

No offense, Vader, but your last post would be considered hate speech if you'd said it about blacks or Jews. You just happen to live in a culture where it's considered OK to hate the rich and blame them for your problems.

Vader wrote:The rich get more money from tax breaks, and then they piss on the rest of us.

They don't "get" money from a tax break.

Where do the poor 'get' their money and are they going to 'trickle down' any differently if we take it from the rich and give it to them? What makes the poor better for the economy? Are they actually good with money or something?

Yeah, I really don't understand this whole notion that the government is giving you money when a tax break is enacted. The government is merely taking less of your money. It makes sense if you think of the government (and actually everyone) as an atomic business. The government is in the business of providing goods and services to the citizens. The Bush Administration decided to have a sale so that people could buy stuff from other people/businesses.

A few things here. First Dcrazy, they aren't just taking less of our money, they had to borrow to even finance giving us the money. It's not like a sale, it's like putting a buick on your credit card when you already are $100,000 in debt.

Strkyer: Hey, the term Voodoo Economics was coined by George H.W. Bush when he ran against Reagan in 1980 for the republican seat. What, I can't use the president's dad's termonology?

Trickle down economics is also a good enough name for it. A tiny trickle of money goes to the people at the bottom.

From an economists' standpoint and as a business owner, the bush tax loan had little effect on spurring the economy. First off, giving tax cuts to income is not a direct way to affect businessnes. The battle cry of Voodoo Economics opponents is that the rich will reinvest their money and create jobs for the poor! First, find a study where this is even proven. Secondly, a proper way to create job creation via a tax cut would be a direct and permanent cut in business taxes. I actually supported the measures to make the Bush Tax Loan permanent--if you want businesses to actually be affected by an income tax cut, you have to make it permanent. A few years of lower taxes isn't something businesses think about in expansion--they digest permanent cuts in their plans. The worst thing about the tax cut besides being a loan was that it was short term. Who is going to start a business based on the premise that they have a little bit of money for a couple years? I've read studies on this.


Lothar said:
"Maybe you should re-read the "no matter how you measure it" point (that is, they give more both in a raw amount, and in proportion to income.)"

You still missed my point. Search for "Disposable income" on google.

"The government should not have the money in the first place, so the fact that it *may* do more good in their hands is irrelevant." - Lothar

Hey, you brought the charity good-for-the-people card out, not me

"And yet we're coming out of the depression... "

Yes, we always do. It's a cyclical upward moving graph. Check GDP in our history. We've pulled out of depressions many times without tax cuts. The burden of proof is in the supply siders to proove they had any effect at all.

"And, of course, by "business cycle" you mean "it's something I don't understand"" - Lothar

That's not exactly a fair assesment. The business cycle is a well documented feature of the both ours and the world economy. GDP goes up and down periodically, tax cuts or not. If there is a winter and summer every year, but one year we're stuck in large winter and someone makes a claim that they are going to bring us out of winter and into summer, and we do go into summer, there is no definite coroloation between the persons' claim and reality. The seasons change, cold to hot. GDP goes up and down, even without government intervention.

"So, what's my solution?
Cut taxes. Force the government to cut spending (because eventually they run up against the edge of their credit limit.) " - Lothar

This is a REALLY bad idea. Having bad credit is something we do not want. Ever try to buy a house with an F credit rating? Instead of waiting for the government to ruin our credit and put us massively in debt (which we already are) I propose we cut spending concurrently with tax cuts now.


"My solution is to lower taxes for the "common good". "

If you consider a terrible credit rating and a weak dollar a good thing, then sure.

Stryker said:
"How is this unfair?"
I'm not complaining about fairness. I'm claiming the policy is ill-advised with no proof of positive effects, especially when we must take a loan to cut taxes while we are massively in debt.

The normal way thing work is "trickle up" economics. People buy things. The rich own the companies. The money goes to them. If the Bush administration actually wanted business expansion, they would have made the tax loan wholly a business-based cut. That could have had a good effect. I know here in california many taxes hinder my business from expanding. Some relief would help. However, if you just give me some dollars for the short term, it doesn't really help my business very much. But if you change the way I can operate my business in a positive manner, that would be a cause for expansion. Some good worker's compensation reform or social security relief. Small businesses get killed by things like social security taxes.

"IMO, the government should not be the steward of your money. YOU know how it can be spent on YOU or CHARITY much better than the government does. Enough said. "

At least we agree here. I just want at least concurrent cuts in spending so we don't have to pay back the tax loan later.

"What makes the poor better for the economy? Are they actually good with money or something? " - Will

The poor spend a majority of the income they receive. The rich, if you give them an extra dollar, will save a greater portion. If you are in a depression, an across the board fixed dollar amount tax rate is the fastest way to infuse the economy. The poor will spend their rebate faster than the rich will infusing the economy. When we're in a recession, the worst thing that can happen is that people stop buying stuff. It's VERY important that we keep the buying-bubble going. The minute consumers start cutting their spending, you'll see job loss, the minute you see job loss, you'll get less consumer spending, and into the cycle of depression we further sink.

Birdseye wrote:The poor spend a majority of the income they receive. The rich, if you give them an extra dollar, will save a greater portion.

I never mentioned any "extra dollars", if the government actually has any laying around they can give them to the poor, sure, no problem, just don't print so many you devalue the dollars I worked for

Seriously though, I'll accept that in the short term the poor spending their income helps the economy more efficiently than the rich being taxed less but why make the two different things linked to begin with?
Let the poor earn more instead of taking from the rich and giving it to them!

You say you won't grow your business on a temporary tax cut but you want to let the poor increase their budget on that same temporary money! How can that be healthy for them, or the economy, in the long term?

Why not increase the poors earning potential with something more substantial instead of the government 'trickling down' a gift?
Because that's all a 'tax cut' for the poor is, nothing more than a politician 'trickling down' a bribe for a vote.

Of course politicians don't know how to increase earning potential, they just know how to take it from those that do.

I'll bet you want to ask:'OK smartass, how can the government increase the poors earning potential?'

Give businesses real tax incentives to create jobs in poor areas.
Take away the corporate welfare unless they create more training, and daycare, and headstart programs etc. etc.
But not the semi-incentive in exchange for the semi-effort like they have been doing. I'm talking about big incentives in exchange for doing the whole chore in some areas.
Let the money men do what they do best, let the people who know how to work within a real budget run these programs, because they are MUCH more efficient at it than Big Government.
The government can keep taxes low because they don't have the costs of running as many social programs, and the private sector can run them at a lower cost because they cut out the highly overpaid middle man...that pimp we call Big Government!
Businessmen will put the dollars to work where and when they are the most effective because we will alot their tax benifit based on results instead of letting Senator PorkBarrel embezzle the general fund in the name of re-election bribes to his home state.
The tax dollars Big Government wastes just by touching the money as it travels from the rich to the poor is enough to fund a second america!

The last time I looked the stats on welfare were:
$1 tax revenue for welfare = $0.24 to the people and $0.76 lost in the political machinery.

We can do so much better than that.

"You say you won't grow your business on a temporary tax cut but you want to let the poor increase their budget on that same temporary money! How can that be healthy for them, or the economy, in the long term? "

You're forgetting the purpose of government intervention in the economy, which is to smooth out the bumps in the business cycle. In a depression, immediate relief is needed. As we've agreed now, the poor will spend a greater portion of an extra dollar immediately. Obviously in tough times, we need immediate relief.

If Bush's plan was to even work as he says it does, it would take several years to have any serious effect. Business expansion doesn't happen over night. It takes planning, risks, and more importantly time. The poor will spend it now. That money trickles back up to the rich. I have no qualms about giving the poor an extra dollar because #1 they could use it more than the rich, #2 they will buy products that are owned by the rich--gasp--TRICKLE UP economics! and #3 The economy will be best helped stay smooth with the immediate infusion of buying to smooth the business cycle bump.

"Why not increase the poors earning potential with something more substantial instead of the government 'trickling down' a gift? "

Oh, I whoreheartedly agree that the solution to help the poor is NOT handouts. We've been dumping millions of dollars into ghettos with little result. We've handed out money to the homeless only to see it spent on drugs. I agree, education and training, especially for unemployed workers is the best route. But the issue here is the effect of tax cuts during a depression, and a demand side cut is the fastest and most efficient way to smooth out the business cycle.

"The government can keep taxes low because they don't have the costs of running as many social programs, and the private sector can run them at a lower cost because they cut out the highly overpaid middle man...that pimp we call Big Government! "

I agree most of the time, but I do have a problem with things like private health care. Private drug companies have brought the worst drug pushing in modern times: Proxac, Zololoft, Attivan, etc. for kids and adults who don't need it. Capitalism and health care just don't go together, IMO. Not that we should completely shift health care to being run by the government, but some balance needs to shift in certain areas.

What social programs can the private sector run?

Head Start, all job training type programs, after school programs, food bank type operations, scholarships and education grants. I'm thinking the different industries would do best in the areas they have experience and also let them provide the daycare type programs for their communities.
The enterprise zone stuff, but not the token crap where a billion dollar company just throws up a single warehouse in a hellhole to get a different tax rate.
Build a school, a police station, a hospital...build and staff a library, a shelter etc. etc. then get a substantial tax benefit.

In healthcare I'd like to see a national lottery provide the funds for a system that would cover everyone as much as possible, some say it would be more than enough.

Drug companies are a monopoly I think, although there are competing companies they each seem to have their own patented inventions that they can artificially inflate the price on, so some government intervention is inevitable because drug therapy has evolved as a major part of health care.

Birds, a couple things:

1) You're right, the ideal situation is cutting taxes AND spending at the same time. But, from watching congress operate for years, I'm pretty sure they can't resist overspending if at all possible -- so the best *realistic* situation is to have them bumping up against credit limits with lower taxes, rather than having them bumping up against credit limits with higher taxes.

2) If you give a tax cut to "the poor" to help smooth out the bumps in the economy... only those who actually make some money will benefit. The jobless will still be screwed. But if you put money into the right types of businesses (as Will suggested), there's a better chance for those people to get hired. For all you say about marginal spending, "the rich" (from what I understand) tend to do things like invest, and investing tends to do things like create jobs.

Give my ridiculously-poor friend (and hundreds like him) a tax cut, and they'll each buy an extra pack of cigarettes. Give my rich friend a tax cut, and his company will hire a couple of interns. Which helps the economy more? It's certainly not as easy a question as you suggest.

Lothar wrote:but chances are, they'll give more of it to charity than you will. So quit your whining.

Wouldn't just be easier to give that money directly to charities / poor people?


</end ignorant liberal>

"Give my rich friend a tax cut, and his company will hire a couple of interns."

This an unproven myth. I own a business and an income tax credit will not cause me to hire anyone. I know I am small, but I do employ shippers and drivers on a contractual basis. If my business has an opportunity to grow and I need to hire someone, I do it. Businesses do NOT hire new people just because the owner gets an income tax credit! New business opportunities are not created out of thin air when you get an income tax credit.

As I've said--and I think you're cornered on this point--if you want to affect business, cut business taxes and make it easier for business to operate. If, for example, california suddenly eliminated sales tax, I'd ramp up my efforts in internet sales to CA (something that hinders my internet market) and that in turn would probably get more jobs for my contract workers.

Income tax credits to grow business is a backwards, silly way to try to expand business. There is no credible study that supports or strongly links the two together. Think about it. What will expand business more, a short term tax credit to income, or long term red tape cutting for business in areas like social security, worker's compensation, or sales tax?

"If you give a tax cut to "the poor" to help smooth out the bumps in the economy... only those who actually make some money will benefit. The jobless will still be screwed. "

Well, I'd include those on unemployment in the demand side cut, as long as they had paid taxes in the past.

"For all you say about marginal spending, "the rich" (from what I understand) tend to do things like invest, and investing tends to do things like create jobs. "

You're missing the point. Yes, the rich save and invest more on average. That's exactly what I said in my post--and exactly why NOT to give them the tax cut in a time of depression. Investing, saving, creating a new business--these things do not immediately have a positive infusion to the economy. Furthermore, a demand side cut will also spur potential new investment as consumers speak with pure demand information--their dollar at a store. As I said when they were enacted, the bush tax loan, if it does have positive effect (which it will, but only marginally...especially compared to other ideas) the benefits will take several years to reap. By then, we'd naturally be headingof the depression from a normal business cycle swing.
The point of government intervention in the economy is to smooth out the business cycle. I refer you to John Maynard Keynes' book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It is the modern basis for fiscal and monetary policy, later honed by other economists.

Let go. The conservatives are the least fiscally conservtive people on the planet at this point. Trillions of dollars in debt we are, with no sign of it being paid off. I don't think you understand how badly our country will be thrown into a depression if the dollar plumments and we have an F credit rating. It may throw the entire WORLD into a depression.

I think we can control the spending, but we need to be vocal to our representatives about it. Remember Ross Perot? He single handedly caused a balanced budget. We can do it! We just need to begin to voice our opinion that running a massive debt is NOT something we will vote for. I will be speaking with my vote.

birdseye

Birdseye wrote:"Give my rich friend a tax cut, and his company will hire a couple of interns."

This an unproven myth.

No, it's a statement of personal knowledge of my friend's business practices. Clearly, yours are different.

In any case, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think the government's job is to try to smooth out the business cycle. You think that's their job, so you think they should make tax cuts in a particular way -- but I think the government's job is to take as little money from the people as possible, so I think they should make as many tax cuts as possible even if they don't particularly help the economy.

We're going to have an F credit rating whether taxes are high or low, so I don't think, when discussing tax cuts, it's even relevant to bring up the deficit. Balancing the budget is a separate point -- and I agree that it should be done, but since it won't be, the next best thing is to keep cutting taxes so that at least the government has less of my money to waste. The government can balance the budget even after the tax cuts, if it so chooses.

"No, it's a statement of personal knowledge of my friend's business practices. Clearly, yours are different."

OK, so your friend does that. I misspoke. In regards to the myth, what I should have said is that it's a myth that an income tax credit will spur business more than adjustments specifically to taxation on business.

"I don't think the government's job is to try to smooth out the business cycle."

Then you support firing Alan Greenspan?

I think what you actually mean is that you don't support the government smoothing the business cycle using Fiscal policy. Monetary policy (what greenspan is the head of) is widely agreed to be very successful. Here is a good primer on the difference between the two: http://gopher.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/macro.html

At this point, I pretty much agree that government should cease Fiscal policy because they ceasely overspend, even if there is a surplus.

"You think that's their job, so you think they should make tax cuts in a particular way "

Well, I actually don't think they should cut taxes just for fiscal policy reasons. I think they should cut taxes and spending and quit wasting our money. We agree on that.

My comments are criticism of bush's tax policy in relation to fiscal policy.

"We're going to have an F credit rating whether taxes are high or low, so I don't think, when discussing tax cuts, it's even relevant to bring up the deficit."

This is not true. There's still the opportunity to get fiscally responsible now. We were off to a good start in the 90s, when Ross Perot pushed the topic of the balanced budget and Clinton/Dole/Bush all whipped out their plans. Depending who you ask or how you look at it, Clinton and the republican congress at the time successfully balanced the budget (naysayers say it was close but no cigar, regardless it was important). We did it in the 90s, we can do it now. George W. Bush, his father, and ronald reagan are the worst deficit abusers in american history. Kennedy, Carter were deficit spenders but not nearly at the magnitude of our recent Neo-cons. It's time for conservatives to become fiscally responible again (not that clinton was hot ★■◆● or something, he was lucky enough to hit an upswing, but at least he aimed for balancing the budget).

"Balancing the budget is a separate point"

I don't see how it is. Taxes are arguably the most integral component of a budget.