-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/bushs_tax_cuts_really_were_for_the_rich -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
From the White House website:
"These are the basic ideas that guide my tax policy: lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need. Everyone who pays income taxes benefits — while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans. I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we've enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart." — President George W. Bush
Hmm.... I guess not.
Puzzle, the President is talking percentages while the article is talking dollar amounts. If I'm a millionaire and you make $35,000 a year 3% of my income is going to be more than 10% of your income because I make way more money.
When the spread on the tax rates is so lop-sided, as I pointed out in the post, when you cut taxes you cannot help but benefit the "rich" more.
Rob: Can you prove your contention about the top 50% of wage-earners without resortinbg to a drug-addled serial liar?
Seriously, if it's true---and I have my doubts---surely you can back it up with someone more credible than Mr. Limbaugh.
(In fact, the list of people LESS credible than Mr. Limbaugh is a short one indeed)
Facts about Taxes
Who Pays Income Taxes?
Can't deal with the facts so you have to attack the source, eh Don?
Well, how about the Empire Center of the Manhattan Institute which states that the top 1% of wage earners pay 22% of the taxes? How about the Congressional Budget Office which had the top 5% of wage earners paying approximately 50% of the taxes in 1999 (raw data available here)? Or how about the Tax Foundation which states that this last year the "poorest" 41% of wage earners paid no federal taxes at all?
There is probably nothing I can link to that will make you believe this, Don, as I'm sure you've already made up your mind not to believe it...but your obstinance aside there is no denying the fact that the rich pay the taxes in this country.
puzzlefeet, you illustrate the problem of taxes perfectly.
Taxes aren't meant to help anyone. They are to fund the day to day operations of the government. Social engineering and redistribution of wealth are not valid uses of taxes.
No, you're wrong...I'm glad to see that you can find better sources than your favorite serial liar. (BTW, I wish you'd stop projecting your own "my party=perfect, opposition party=the devil" thinking onto me)
You're still only looking at income taxes, and not total taxes. Your typical WalMart employee makes less than $12,000/year and loses 20% of that to taxes.
Steve, you're wrong about taxes---they aren't just the day-to-day operating funds, they are an investment in the future.
Because our parents paid their taxes we have things like schools and hospitals and interstate highways. Our parent's taxes paid for rural electrification---you're welcome, Rob---and built an economic infrastructure second to none. Because our parents paid their taxes we have the Internet and the computer revolution.
We pay taxes today in order to make sure our children and grandchilden befefit from this investment they way that we did.
When a corporation makes a PO box in the Caymans their headquarters, they are unpatriotic---they take the benefits of past investments while ducking their own responsibilities.
Somehow we became the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, while we had a progressive income tax.
We should 2% flat tax wealth, start at $2 million then most of us would not even pay taxes.
"Steve, you're wrong about taxes---they aren't just the day-to-day operating funds, they are an investment in the future."
IE social engineering and redistribution of wealth.
I kind of like it when a company goes to the Caymans because it really pisses people like you off. Why do they leave, Don? Outrageous tax rates, maybe?
Re payroll taxes, maybe poor people shouldn't have to pay them. Then people like you can raise them on the rich people like me so the poor can have a big fat retirement check.
Blah blah blah.
Of course I'm not talking about payroll taxes, dummy, the Bush tax cuts didn't touch those. Bush cut income taxes, and those are heavily lumped upon "the rich."
We probably could cut things like payroll taxes if you liberals would stop complaining every time we try to reduce the growth in spending on things like Medicare, Medicaid. You want us to cut payroll taxes which fund those things yet you aren't willing to cut spending on those programs. Where do you think the money is going to come from?
Don, you must be referring to payroll taxes, right? Social Security, medicaid, etc.
Hello? Don?
Hey Don,
Can we assume that you have any authoritative documentation that Mr. Limbaugh is wrong? Particularly as CBO and IRS figures seem to back up his contetntion regarding who pays taxes. Or are you once again just blowing partisan smoke?
As for payroll taxes, if there's a point to adding those into the mix, why not add property taxes, sales taxes, along with excise taxes on the boat and "gas-guzzler" tax on that new Veyron?
And while we're at it, how about a source for that contention that the average Wal-Mart employee only makes $12,000 per year. Or did that come from some PAW/UFPJ/IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R. website?
That doesn't make a lick of sense, Bat. Don't you want everybody to pay their fair share?
Simple math. Federal minimum wage is $5.15 times 32 hrs/week (fulltime at WalMart) times 52 weeks = $8570. If they manage 40 hours, never take a day off, and never get sick, that can rise to a whopping $10,700.
As for the percentage of taxes they pay, here you go, dude. I'm sure you'll agree that a Nobel laureate in economics probably knows more about taxation that a serial liar radio host, right?
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120302.html
Great Don, now that we're clear can you tell me how payroll taxes are pertinent to Bush's cutting income taxes?
Though, frankly, I'd be all for cutting payroll taxes (which are largley a flat percentage across all income levels). Care to get on board with me for a "let's cut the payroll taxes" campaign? Just think of all the poor people we could help!
<blockquote>Yup. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.</blockquote>
So you're hung up on the minutia that Rob doesn't preface these articles with "Federal Income" before every mention of the word tax?
Would you suggest that the poor pay no payroll taxes? Or that companies pay the full 18% of SS?
If the poor paid no SS taxes, you do realize that the current SS scheme will collapse sooner than it already is?
Don,
In what year did the reality-challenged Paul Krugman win his Nobel prize? And for what did he win it? Surely not Economic Science... nor rocket science either.
Don,
And while we're at it, did Krugman win the Nobel before or after his stint as corporate advisor to Enron? Hmmm?
<blockquote>Don't you want everybody to pay their fair share?</blockquote>
How much is fair?
Don: Even these <a href="http://www.rmpjc.org/2002/WalMart.html">anti-Wal-Mart activists</a> think the average wage of a full-time Wal-Mart employee is $15k, with a <i>28 hour</i> minimum for "full time".
So, 12k seems a bit low. Maybe that's because Wal-Mart doesn't actually pay minimum wage everywhere? Because, you know, with an unemployment rate under 5%, there's actually competition for even the unskilled, lots of places.
(PS. Calling Limbaugh a liar won't change the CBO or IRS numbers. And arugment to authority won't make Krugman more right than the agencies charged with collecting or overseeing taxes. But maybe your reliance on Krugman explains your "12 thousand dollar" figure... being three years out of date. And "lucky duckies" seems to be a Krugman invention, though he implies the WSJ coined it. Of course, there's also no links at the archive site, to the WSJ.
And, of course, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200506011007.asp">some</a> people would argue (and provide copious, copious evidence) that <I>Krugman</i> is a serial liar with an agenda just as big as Limbaugh's... and a lot less openly admitted.)
But Sigivald, Krugman has never been caught abusing prescription pain killers. Therefore, he is right, regardless, and Rush is wrong.
And a liar.
I think that's how it goes...
Don, How can the AVERAGE Wal-Mart employee earn MINIMUM wage?
I don't remember much from math, but I think I recall something about how you get an average... Even if every single employee, save the CEO, made minimum, you still couldn't get that for an average...
What song did that "straw man" sing? Oh, yeah...
"The govt never invests; govt is an expense to the public'
Wonder where all those roads and bridges came from?
Insult.
A "no shit Sherlock" point plus innuendo.
Insult plus a reiteration of the previous "no shit Sherlock" point plus more innuendo.
Patting himself on his back.
More innuendo and an appeal to authority.
Next up from the one trick pony: more insults.
So? These kinds of distinctions only matter to Marxists, communists, and socialists.
Greenspan made a comment a while back saying something along the lines of the income gap threating democratic capitalism.
What is "democratic capitalism" and how would a rich guy threaten it? Capitalism is nothing more than economic freedom. How does one guy having more than another threaten economic freedom?
Robert says: In real life, anyone has the opportunity to become prosperous if they want to do so, and do what is necessary for that end. No hereditary class system or govt mandates hold you back in our system. Success is available for those who want it enough.
Graeme says: that is simply not reality robert
And I find myself wondering how Graeme could be correct?
Robert, correctly, lays out the societal model that the country succeeded upon and Graeme say that's not reality. How? What is the reality?
I see Robert's definition all the time. People succeeding everywhere... when they want to. The people who fail actively do things to help themselves fail... How can you deny this?
Ahhh! robert108 said that "anyone has the opportunity to become prosperous if they want to do so". We know that is not true because some people die before they get a chance. Others are born mentally retarded and don't have the opportunity to become prosperous as a result. And still others, related to the retarded, are those we call Marxists and communists who refuse delivery of reality and thus prematurely banish any chance of prosperity because they are too busy arguing what is "fair" and what is not.
So in the end, graeme is correct. robert108 wasn't describing reality. He forgot about the dead, the mentally retarded, and the Marxists such as graeme.
The top 50% of wage earners pay about 95% of the taxes.
I'm all for tax cuts, but this tidbit is somewhat misleading. After all, how are you defining taxes? Do you include FICA? Or the various sales taxes? Or do you simply mean the federal income tax? If that is the case then you are leaving out over 50% of the taxes that the federal government collects. A little under 20% of the taxes paid come from the income tax on businesses, which are ultimately paid by you and me either as shareholders (lower share price profits) or as consumers. Are you including that sort of stuff as well?
Anyway, reducing the federal income tax is never going to really help middle-income and low wage earners much, as most of them pay more in FICA than they ever will in income taxes. Indeed, its in FICA that we have seen the real growth in taxes in the U.S. (as far as the federal government is concerned) over the past fifty years. Thus getting that under control is really the area that folks of less lofty incomes should be concerned about.
robert108,
Please, read what I wrote. For your average American focusing on cutting FICA is far more important than the individual income tax. Cutting business taxes would help too, since that would increase the amount of money going into retirement investment vehicles like pension funds. In none of this do I argue against cutting individual income taxes. Its simply a matter of priorities. You can cut individual taxes all you want to; until you attack FICA (payroll taxes) you aren't going to reduce the greatest federal tax burden on your average wage earner.
Anyway, you didn't answer many of my questions and I am well aware that SSI is a ponzi scheme, as are all unfunded, Bismarkian pension plans.
robert108,
Also, GW's plan wasn't a serious or a very helpful plan (and Republicans were as much a part of its demise as Democrats were - after all, the Republicans are in the MAJORITY in the Congress) since it created an even larger bureaucratic morass than we have today. When someone proposes something along the lines of the current Chilean system I will start to take their proposals seriously.
Cato article on the Chilean system: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html
robert108,
Since when did I argue merely for piecemeal reform (though I'll take that if that is all that possible at the time)?
The entire point to my statement was that merely looking at the federal income tax leaves out much of the overall picture, especially from the stamdpoint of the average wage earner.
robert108,
The majority of the seats in the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans. If they can't stand up to the media that's more of an issue of their own cowardice than anything else. Or have Republicans so taken on the mantle of victimhood status?
Also, what exactly does the judiciary have to do with SSI reform/abolition?
I realize the GW SS plan wasn't nearly enough, but it relied on the success of its limited privatization to sell its enlargement in the future. It was politically possible, in other words.
Weren't you just attacking me for my supposedly piecemeal approach? What gives?
Epi: I never "attacked" you at all. You seemed to pit FICA reduction against income tax reduction, and I don't think it is necessary to do that. In other words, I was agreeing with you about FICA, and adding income tax reduction to the mix. This thread was about income tax reduction and the leftie spin on that subject, btw. I don't think you can assume that means FICA is insignificant.
My point about the MSM is simple: The lefties control the public dialogue through the MSM, so that distorts the political situation toward the left, more than the electorate wishes it to be. It has nothing to do with victimization; it is the truth of the present situation.
I made no connection between the judiciary and SS reform, but if the GW bill had been passed, we would very likely have seen it, through constant investigations and legal challenges.
I wasn't attacking you, and I didn't feel good about the gradual approach to SS, but my point was that it was better than nothing. You had previously called for a serious plan from DC, and that was more than anyone else has done since FDR.
Calm down, I'm not your enemy.
robert108,
Anyway, the basic problem with Bush's program was that it lead to increased government control over SS, not less, due to the extra layer of bureucratic control it required. A true reform wouldn't do that.
robert108,
Well, its nice to see that we are merely talking past each other (mostly). I still don't buy your MSM hypothesis though. Republicans need to grow a backbone if what you have described is really true.
As to what the average American wants, well they want two things: less taxes and more government services.
robert108,
That's a fine sentiment as far as it goes, but my point is that the Bush "reform" went down the entirely wrong road to greater government centralization. You argue that the government portion of the program would have eventually sloughed off, but that is not my vision of how government either grows or works. Much like the California energy market "deregulation" wasn't really deregulation (or a very good way to even regulate the market there) Bush's SSI program wasn't really reform - it was merely adding a layer of government to an already overly bureaucratized system.
I'm happy with piecemeal reform (in other words), but it has to be real reform.
Tax Rates vs Tax Receipts
The crusade for "a living wage" that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support -- much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.
<img />We have a Market Based Economy. An individual gets paid what they are worth in that market. If some individual had not chosen to learn in school or to acquire skills at work, and thinks they should be paid according to the needs of their egos rather than the productivity of their labor, they are likely to fail.Contrary to the notion that deficits have resulted from reduced tax receipts by the federal government, those receipts in fact reach new record highs annually along with the GDP. The idea that tax cuts for the rich or otherwise were responsible for the deficit flies in the face of easily obtainable statistics. Spending increases simply outstripped the rising volume of tax receipts, even though hundreds of billions of dollars more is pouring into Washington than ever before. Of course there is no amount of money that cannot be overspent.It was "tax rates" that were cut. As for "the rich", even if we accept the popular definition of them as people currently above some given income level, those in the top income brackets pay larger sums of money in taxes. What bothers the liberals is that "the rich" pay a smaller percentage of their rising incomes. But the hard data indicates they still pay more than middle income labor does.Do some "rich" cheat on their taxes? Yes. Do some "poor" also cheat on their taxes? Yes. Take cash gartuity for example.Actual federal spending on entitlement has increased annually. What has declined is appropriations - the legal authorization of future spending. In other words, hypothetical money declined but hard cash increased. Most cutbacks in social programs were reductions in projected levels of future spending.Are the rich getting richer? I sure hope so. Because without them the rest of us will have to pick up the tab.Have you ever thought that the poor don't pay taxes because they don't have enough to live? Hell, if I were to go out on my own- I wouldn't stand a chance. Jobs are hard to come by for a student like me. If you're poor, you can't afford the education to get a better job. SOMEONE has to work the lower paid jobs. If we all worked higher paid jobs...well, you know that's not the way it works anywhere.
So if poor people pay half a million dollars in taxes, then where is the money coming from? Explain that. Oh, and what's even worse, my family has been taxed as a family and assumed to have my head of household still alive, so they made us pay more than we should have. Tell my dead dad to go get a job. I'm sure he'll just roll over in his grave.
Let's see, any tax is going to make the rich pay more than the poor, simply because the rich have more to give. it's more logical than taxing the poor something that they can't pay. Now how in the world is it possible to charge the poor more than the rich?
We also have a growing shortage of skilled labor in this country.
I do have empathy for anyone whos situation is hard. I was there myself . Thirty years ago I worked in jobs that are filled by illegal immigrants today. I know minimum wage.
We have a nation where roughly only 25% have any formal education beyond high school. That in itself sets one up for a hard road ahead.
But that's another issue.