Cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate the economy.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zstream
No, you are just really bad at arguing is all, lol!

Or you are clueless. 'Dude'. Once again the question is, say nothing to trash (posts, not the poster), or say it's trash. Neither is particularly helpful, but oh well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your actual error is 'no connection to logic'.

What is unclear to you? Tax cuts are free, he said. So, we can cut taxes 1% - it's free. We can cut taxes 50% - it's free. We can cut taxes 100% - it's free.

Tax cuts are free, period. That's what he said.

You ought to look up the Socratic method sometime, and you might then recognize the question I asked him to answer to help *him* understand his error, if he answers.

No he didn't. For once would you stop lying here?

Yes, he did, and you are lying. Now, why don't you do as asked previously, and stop reading and responding to my posts, since you can't do better than that?

You could not provide where he said "tax cuts are free". He stated they don't cost - which is a FACT since they are not an outlay. YOU attempted to twist that into him stating "tax cuts are free" which he did not say.
Oh, and I will reply as I wish, just because you can't handle the facts and truth doesn't mean I can't respond to your posts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

I would change "only helped" to "disproportionately helped". The tax relief did hit everyone.

Shaving 3% off of the top tier though is a crapton of revenue lost.

BTW I'm waiting for a reply from you to a post above =)

It's more PJ dis-information not worth the bother to rebut the 100th time.

But here is a link to a summary of the government data on who benefits from the tax cuts.

Excerpt:

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

It clearly shows how the rich got far more benefit *as a percentage*, especially when you look at how much the 'tax cute' increased each group's net income.

The purported goal for the 'tx cuts' was stimulus, but in fact, while the idea of the right tax cuts for stimulus actually was a good idea, these were designed more to reward Republicans' donors, the ultra wealthy. As the link shows, they were not well designed for stimulus:

Zandi examined the average ?bang for the buck? of provisions in the enacted tax cuts. He finds that the significant majority of these tax cuts consist of policies that return little bang for the buck, yielding less than $1 of short-term economic demand for each $1 of cost. Altogether, Zandi?s study indicates that the average bang for the buck from the tax cuts has been 74 cents. (In other words, each dollar of tax cuts has produced only 74 cents of added economic demand the next year.)
Zandi also examined an alternative stimulus package and found it would have yielded far more short-term demand ? $1.20 for each $1 of cost ? and thus have generated significantly more economic and job growth. The alternative package would have put more money into the hands of those who immediately spend it ? low- and middle-income Americans ? through tax cuts targeted on this group, greater temporary unemployment benefits, and more federal fiscal relief to states to lessen state budget cuts and tax increases. As noted, the federal tax cuts that were enacted are heavily skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly. (They are more likely to save their tax cuts.)

Despite PJ's misleading claims, the top 1% received a huge share of the ucts that was "substantially larger than the share of federal taxes they pay".

Note, some of the cute were aimed directly at the rich:

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

 

[Craig234]

So, you claim that I'm wrong to say "Tax cuts don't cost a thing." and "Tax cuts are free." are the same statement.

You say how they're different.

By the way, for every instance in my previous posts where I quoted him saying tax cuts are free, you are instructed to replace it with "Tax cuts don't cost a thing."

My points remain exactly the same with the 'change', but remove the phony issue you made up.

PJ has not yet answered the question. Since tax cuts "don't cost a thing", why not cut cut taxes to zero?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Right, so he never said that "tax cuts are free" - it was just you twisting his continued reply to you into something he did not suggest. It's the same thing that I've been stating - he just put it in a way where you thought you'd twist it.
Try addressing the issue instead of trying to twist what he said. The issue here is you liberals not understanding that cost=outlay.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

I would change "only helped" to "disproportionately helped". The tax relief did hit everyone.

Shaving 3% off of the top tier though is a crapton of revenue lost.

BTW I'm waiting for a reply from you to a post above =)

It's more PJ dis-information not worth the bother to rebut the 100th time.

But here is a link to a summary of the government data on who benefits from the tax cuts.

Excerpt:

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

It clearly shows how the rich got far more benefit *as a percentage*, especially when you look at how much the 'tax cute' increased each group's net income.

The purported goal for the 'tx cuts' was stimulus, but in fact, while the idea of the right tax cuts for stimulus actually was a good idea, these were designed more to reward Republicans' donors, the ultra wealthy. As the link shows, they were not well designed for stimulus:

Zandi examined the average ?bang for the buck? of provisions in the enacted tax cuts. He finds that the significant majority of these tax cuts consist of policies that return little bang for the buck, yielding less than $1 of short-term economic demand for each $1 of cost. Altogether, Zandi?s study indicates that the average bang for the buck from the tax cuts has been 74 cents. (In other words, each dollar of tax cuts has produced only 74 cents of added economic demand the next year.)
Zandi also examined an alternative stimulus package and found it would have yielded far more short-term demand ? $1.20 for each $1 of cost ? and thus have generated significantly more economic and job growth. The alternative package would have put more money into the hands of those who immediately spend it ? low- and middle-income Americans ? through tax cuts targeted on this group, greater temporary unemployment benefits, and more federal fiscal relief to states to lessen state budget cuts and tax increases. As noted, the federal tax cuts that were enacted are heavily skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly. (They are more likely to save their tax cuts.)

Despite PJ's misleading claims, the top 1% received a huge share of the ucts that was "substantially larger than the share of federal taxes they pay".

Note, some of the cute were aimed directly at the rich:

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

Wrong, that first snip was about "the average after-tax income". For you to suggest that it shows "the rich got far more benefit" is dishonest.

As to the rest of your BS - How can a group that pays ZERO fed income tax due to Bush's tax-cuts have a worse benefit? That's right - they didn't. They benefited the most as their incometax liability when from some - to NONE. Now I know you libs tend to not understand this but when the top 1% pays 40% of Fed income taxes so obviously their amount will be higher. And also if you libs actually looked, the top 1% have increased their share of fed income taxes under Bush.
Meh, I'm sure you won't admit any of this...but so be it...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

I would change "only helped" to "disproportionately helped". The tax relief did hit everyone.

Shaving 3% off of the top tier though is a crapton of revenue lost.

BTW I'm waiting for a reply from you to a post above =)

It's more PJ dis-information not worth the bother to rebut the 100th time.

But here is a link to a summary of the government data on who benefits from the tax cuts.

Excerpt:

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

It clearly shows how the rich got far more benefit *as a percentage*, especially when you look at how much the 'tax cute' increased each group's net income.

The purported goal for the 'tx cuts' was stimulus, but in fact, while the idea of the right tax cuts for stimulus actually was a good idea, these were designed more to reward Republicans' donors, the ultra wealthy. As the link shows, they were not well designed for stimulus:

Zandi examined the average ?bang for the buck? of provisions in the enacted tax cuts. He finds that the significant majority of these tax cuts consist of policies that return little bang for the buck, yielding less than $1 of short-term economic demand for each $1 of cost. Altogether, Zandi?s study indicates that the average bang for the buck from the tax cuts has been 74 cents. (In other words, each dollar of tax cuts has produced only 74 cents of added economic demand the next year.)
Zandi also examined an alternative stimulus package and found it would have yielded far more short-term demand ? $1.20 for each $1 of cost ? and thus have generated significantly more economic and job growth. The alternative package would have put more money into the hands of those who immediately spend it ? low- and middle-income Americans ? through tax cuts targeted on this group, greater temporary unemployment benefits, and more federal fiscal relief to states to lessen state budget cuts and tax increases. As noted, the federal tax cuts that were enacted are heavily skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly. (They are more likely to save their tax cuts.)

Despite PJ's misleading claims, the top 1% received a huge share of the ucts that was "substantially larger than the share of federal taxes they pay".

Note, some of the cute were aimed directly at the rich:

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

Wrong, that first snip was about "the average after-tax income". For you to suggest that it shows "the rich got far more benefit" is dishonest.

As to the rest of your BS - How can a group that pays ZERO fed income tax due to Bush's tax-cuts have a worse benefit? That's right - they didn't. They benefited the most as their incometax liability when from some - to NONE. Now I know you libs tend to not understand this but when the top 1% pays 40% of Fed income taxes so obviously their amount will be higher. And also if you libs actually looked, the top 1% have increased their share of fed income taxes under Bush.
Meh, I'm sure you won't admit any of this...but so be it...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

So, you claim that I'm wrong to say "Tax cuts don't cost a thing." and "Tax cuts are free." are the same statement.

You say how they're different.

By the way, for every instance in my previous posts where I quoted him saying tax cuts are free, you are instructed to replace it with "Tax cuts don't cost a thing."

My points remain exactly the same with the 'change', but remove the phony issue you made up.

PJ has not yet answered the question. Since tax cuts "don't cost a thing", why not cut cut taxes to zero?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Right, so he never said that "tax cuts are free" - it was just you twisting his continued reply to you into something he did not suggest. It's the same thing that I've been stating - he just put it in a way where you thought you'd twist it.
Try addressing the issue instead of trying to twist what he said. The issue here is you liberals not understanding that cost=outlay.

Yes or no - Are tax-cuts outlays/Cost?

And yes you were wrong to change the words and then claim he said it. Tax-cuts NEVER have a cost as they are not an outlay. That does not mean they are "free" - "free" has nothing to do with it since there is no "cost" ever involved.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Craig234

So, you claim that I'm wrong to say "Tax cuts don't cost a thing." and "Tax cuts are free." are the same statement.

You say how they're different.

By the way, for every instance in my previous posts where I quoted him saying tax cuts are free, you are instructed to replace it with "Tax cuts don't cost a thing."

My points remain exactly the same with the 'change', but remove the phony issue you made up.

PJ has not yet answered the question. Since tax cuts "don't cost a thing", why not cut cut taxes to zero?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Right, so he never said that "tax cuts are free" - it was just you twisting his continued reply to you into something he did not suggest. It's the same thing that I've been stating - he just put it in a way where you thought you'd twist it.
Try addressing the issue instead of trying to twist what he said. The issue here is you liberals not understanding that cost=outlay.

Seriously, GET OVER IT. Tax cuts not costing a thing and reducing taxes to zero don't mean the same thing. As CAD said, they are NOT a cost because they are not an outlay. There's no line on the budget that says ------------ 5% income tax cut across the board... or whatever you want. It reduces your intake of money, and that's not a cost.

If you want to look at tax cuts as an indirect cost because it has the same immediate effect as increasing your spending (because your net surplus/deficit drops lower), then fine. For PJ to assert that it has no cost is a legitimate claim. Get over your childish questioning of "WHAT ABOUT REDUCING OUR TAXES TO ZERO," because that's not what we're trying to get at here.

This is absolutely ridiculous because you keep arguing on YOUR definition of cost


cost - 12 dictionary results Jump to: Synonyms | News | Nearby Words
cost
/k?st, k?st/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kawst, kost] Show IPA noun, verb, cost or, for 10?12, cost·ed, cost·ing.
?noun
1. the price paid to acquire, produce, accomplish, or maintain anything: the high cost of a good meal.
2. an outlay or expenditure of money, time, labor, trouble, etc.: What will the cost be to me? - PJ's definition
3. a sacrifice, loss, or penalty: to work at the cost of one's health. - Craig's definition

Can't you grow up and just realize what each of you are saying and admit that under YOUR definition of cost, it applies. To bring up reducing taxes to zero is absolutely absurd because you KNOW that's not what PJ is talking about anyway.

 

[Eeezee]

The Laffer curve holds some truth, but it is too simple. It's true that if taxes are 100%, obviously no one will have an incentive to make money. However, if taxes are 70%, that means you're still making 30% of your income. 30% of 10 million dollars is still 3 million dollars. 30% of 20 million dollars is still 6 million dollars. Thus, there is an obvious incentive to generate more revenue for yourself; you still walk away with more.

The Laffer Curve only truly makes sense at the extremes of 0% and 100%, which makes no sense if you're trying to talk about realistic tax structures. Surely there is an optimal rate somewhere between them, sure, but there is no reason for the distribution to match a smooth curve, nor is this rate predictable without empirical evidence (which puts the optimal rate as high as 80% in some studies, but certainly nowhere as low as tax rates are today).

No one knows where the sweet spot is, and anyone who does is lying through their teeth. All they know is that it's greater than 0% and less than 100%.

Furthermore, proponents of the Laffer curve claim that higher tax rates = the rich will evade taxes more. This is absolutely nonsense; higher tax rates do not magically turn you from a law-abiding citizen into a tax evading pig. The people who have the desire and the ability to evade taxes (or at least cleverly reduce their taxable income in various ways) already do so, and they will continue doing so no matter what the rate is.

The CBO published a paper in 2005 revealing that all of our tax cuts for the highest income brackets didn't do squat when it came to government tax revenues or GDP growth.

The biggest problem I have with supply-side economics is that it fails to recognize that higher income brackets save a significantly larger percentage of their income. In other words, it assumes that everyone spends and saves at the same rate, and that's a flawed assumption that ruins the core of the arguments supporting the Laffer curve. Consumption is better for an economy than saving, even if you make the incorrect assumption that 100% of savings will be reinvested.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As to the rest of your BS - How can a group that pays ZERO fed income tax due to Bush's tax-cuts have a worse benefit? That's right - they didn't. They benefited the most as their incometax liability when from some - to NONE. Now I know you libs tend to not understand this but when the top 1% pays 40% of Fed income taxes so obviously their amount will be higher. And also if you libs actually looked, the top 1% have increased their share of fed income taxes under Bush.
Meh, I'm sure you won't admit any of this...but so be it...

Even if they've increased their share, 35% is far from an optimal rate. 40% wouldn't be a huge increase, but it would increase government revenue considerably.

Better yet, we could eliminate the countless loopholes in the system that allow so many in the top bracket to evade taxes. The share would definitely jump then, even though the people currently paying taxes in that bracket wouldn't see any change

Here is a mental exercise for you: Say I charge the only rich man in the country a 5% tax rate on his $10,000,000 income. I then charge the rest of the country (say 1,000 people) a 5% tax rate as well, but they all make only $10,000 each.

Rich guy's tax = $500,000
Everyone else = $500,000
Total tax revenue = $1 million

You might say, "Hey, the rich are paying over 50% of the taxes for all of those freeloading peasants! That's unfair!" However, that is a deceptive and illogical claim; the rich man might not directly use services like public transportation, and perhaps he even hires his own security force so he doesn't use the police. However, without the rest of the population he would have no income. Indirectly, he is receiving more benefit from those public services than any individual in the group because so many people are responsible for his elevated income. The public police and fire services keep his city and workers safe. The public transportation system allows his workers to get to work (and with the money saved, they can buy more of whatever product Rich Guy produces).

This is a simple example, but it helps to illustrate the fallacy of the "40% of taxes are paid by x people" claim. While it's true, it's also meaningless. They directly might use none of the public services, but they indirectly benefit from them much more than any individual in the population.

In other words, even if income tax were flat across the board the rich would still probably pay a larger percentage of total tax revenue because they make that much more money than everyone else.

Edit: And it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. If you earn more money, you'll pay more taxes to the government (even if the percentage is the same for all income levels).

Also, the "flat tax" that Ron Paul people love to squawk, ie a national sales tax, is nothing but regressive taxation, giving the poor a larger (effective) income tax rate than the rich.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As to the rest of your BS - How can a group that pays ZERO fed income tax due to Bush's tax-cuts have a worse benefit? That's right - they didn't. They benefited the most as their incometax liability when from some - to NONE. Now I know you libs tend to not understand this but when the top 1% pays 40% of Fed income taxes so obviously their amount will be higher. And also if you libs actually looked, the top 1% have increased their share of fed income taxes under Bush.
Meh, I'm sure you won't admit any of this...but so be it...

Even if they've increased their share, 35% is far from an optimal rate. 40% wouldn't be a huge increase, but it would increase government revenue considerably.

Better yet, we could eliminate the countless loopholes in the system that allow so many in the top bracket to evade taxes. The share would definitely jump then, even though the people currently paying taxes in that bracket wouldn't see any change

Here is a mental exercise for you: Say I charge the only rich man in the country a 5% tax rate on his $10,000,000 income. I then charge the rest of the country (say 1,000 people) a 5% tax rate as well, but they all make only $10,000 each.

Rich guy's tax = $500,000
Everyone else = $500,000
Total tax revenue = $1 million

You might say, "Hey, the rich are paying over 50% of the taxes for all of those freeloading peasants! That's unfair!" However, that is a deceptive and illogical claim; the rich man might not directly use services like public transportation, and perhaps he even hires his own security force so he doesn't use the police. However, without the rest of the population he would have no income. Indirectly, he is receiving more benefit from those public services than any individual in the group because so many people are responsible for his elevated income. The public police and fire services keep his city and workers safe. The public transportation system allows his workers to get to work (and with the money saved, they can buy more of whatever product Rich Guy produces).

This is a simple example, but it helps to illustrate the fallacy of the "40% of taxes are paid by x people" claim. While it's true, it's also meaningless. They directly might use none of the public services, but they indirectly benefit from them much more than any individual in the population.

In other words, even if income tax were flat across the board the rich would still probably pay a larger percentage of total tax revenue because they make that much more money than everyone else.

Edit: And it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. If you earn more money, you'll pay more taxes to the government (even if the percentage is the same for all income levels).

Also, the "flat tax" that Ron Paul people love to squawk, ie a national sales tax, is nothing but regressive taxation, giving the poor a larger (effective) income tax rate than the rich.

Yes, but one man paying $500,000 does not get $500,000 worth of police protection. He doesn't get 500x more protection than the people who pay $1000 each. Do you get it? So if the policeman patrols once an hour around most blocks where the average Joe lives, rich man doesn't get 500x more patrols meaning that he has an army of officers surrounding him. So he's getting a shitty value for his money. I think what you're trying to say is that to YOU it's justifiable for a rich person to pay more, and so this is where you talk about how rich people aren't losing that much and benefit from the working class.

Yes the rich ARE paying a bunch of taxes for the rest of us freeloaders. Get over it. I feel like people below me benefit more than I do from my money, and I'm sure people above my income level feel the same too. However, a lot of us are content where we are and while some like my parents get killed by AMT and have to pay up the ass, we still have plenty of money to go around, so while no one likes to pay taxes, the rich are more ok with losing a chunk of their money than say the poor.

I think it's whether we feel it's justified this way or not. Unfortunately this is the way society works, and we rich will ALWAYS get raped with taxes.

What my fair share is and what your fair share is becomes a tricky issue. To say that the rich deserve to lose more of their money because they don't need it as much is moving towards wealth redistribution. But to say that holding their money benefits everyone as a whole would be a better way of phrasing things. And here's where conservatives and liberals differ. Supply side believes that letting people spend their own money would be better than the government spending their money. Which is better? Well, not a simple answer is it?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

I would change "only helped" to "disproportionately helped". The tax relief did hit everyone.

Shaving 3% off of the top tier though is a crapton of revenue lost.

So???

If you cut the bottom tax rate by 3% why shouldn't you cut the top rate by 3%??

Why is it acceptable to look at someone who makes $200k a year and decide that they already make too much money and don't deserve a tax cut?

Who gets to decide what is 'fair' and what is not fair?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
But here is a link to a summary of the government data on who benefits from the tax cuts.

Your 'summary' comes from a liberal think tank.

Google them and this is the description you get:
'Liberal policy organization specializing in federal budget issues from a low- income perspective.'

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

That's because they don't pay any fucking taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

My understanding was that most of the money lost in revenues came from cutting the taxes for the highest income bracket.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

That's because they don't pay any fucking taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, that's not true. They might not pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax, gas taxes, and payroll taxes. They also pay social security and medicare, and medicaid if their state has it. So saying they pay no taxes isn't right, unless they do not work and do not purchase goods or services.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

That's because they don't pay any fucking taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, that's not true. They might not pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax, gas taxes, and payroll taxes. They also pay social security and medicare, and medicaid if their state has it. So saying they pay no taxes isn't right, unless they do not work and do not purchase goods or services.

The article and the quote is about income taxes and Bush's income tax cuts and nothing else. In those terms my statement is completely correct.

The writers of that piece are being intellectually dishonest by making that statement.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

My understanding was that most of the money lost in revenues came from cutting the taxes for the highest income bracket.

Of course it does. They pay all the taxes in the first place!!!!

The top 1% of earners pay more taxes than the bottom 50%!!! The top 5% of the country pays over half of all income taxes. When tax rates are skewed that much there is no way you can reduce taxes without the top earners gaining the largest share of those cuts.


Let me put this in dollar terms, using 2005 figures since they are the ones I have available.

According to the FY 2009 budget's historical charts PDF individual income taxes in 2005 amounted to 927 billion.

Based on the IRS 2005 tax share figures it breaks down like this: (the numbers are accumulative.)
Top 1% paid $361 billion in taxes
Top 5% paid $546 billion in taxes
Top 10% paid $649 billion in taxes
Top 25% paid $787 billion in taxes
Top 50% paid $889 billion in taxes

That means the bottom 50% paid only $38 billion in taxes.

 

[Craig234]

Very short responses to idiocy now.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Wrong, that first snip was about "the average after-tax income". For you to suggest that it shows "the rich got far more benefit" is dishonest.

I'm not going to bother parsing your nonsense.

The post is clear whatever your lies:

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts

As to the rest of your BS - How can a group that pays ZERO fed income tax due to Bush's tax-cuts have a worse benefit? That's right - they didn't. They benefited the most as their incometax liability when from some - to NONE. Now I know you libs tend to not understand this but when the top 1% pays 40% of Fed income taxes so obviously their amount will be higher. And also if you libs actually looked, the top 1% have increased their share of fed income taxes under Bush.
Meh, I'm sure you won't admit any of this...but so be it...

I'll admit you are an idiot, and dishonest. It's one of the oldest myths your type propagates to say 'the rich pay more, so they get more cuts', pretending that it's as simple as pointing out the difference between dollars and percents. The problem is, you are typically saying it when that's not the issue. When someone points out - let's quote my link (which you didnt seem to read, I don't recall you ever seeming to read the links) -

The top one percent of households will receive one third of the tax cuts in 2004, which is substantially larger than the share of federal taxes they pay.

You respond to *that* with your silly little lie about dollars versus percents, as if you are actually talking about the rich not getting a bigger share *proportionally*. It's a lie.

You just post lie after lie. They get rebutted, when I and others bother.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And yes you were wrong to change the words and then claim he said it. Tax-cuts NEVER have a cost as they are not an outlay. That does not mean they are "free" - "free" has nothing to do with it since there is no "cost" ever involved.

You failed to show any difference between "has no cost" and "free". Because there isn't any, because you are wrong, and that's now clear with you failing to answer.

PJ said tax cuts have no cost. I asked him, why not cut taxes to zero then?

He is still dodging the question.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

That's because they don't pay any fucking taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you did not notice the quote is about the cuts to *investment income*, not wages.

I bolded a different section to show the info you did not pay any attention to.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So???

If you cut the bottom tax rate by 3% why shouldn't you cut the top rate by 3%??

Why is it acceptable to look at someone who makes $200k a year and decide that they already make too much money and don't deserve a tax cut?

Try $200M more than $200K. Why is it acceptable to decide they DO deserve a tax cut and increase our nation's deficit? If you want to cut spending, cut it. If you can't, you can't.

Who gets to decide what is 'fair' and what is not fair?

This is a great example of your blind ideology. It's sort of a rhetorical question implying the answer is 'no one'.

It's simply irrational. Then since 'no one' gets to decide that, we just can't have any taxes.

It's blathering irrationality by you. You are spewing nonsense that may sound like it has some point on the surface, but doesn't. Are you suggesting no one can decide that?

Who are YOU saying can decide it? I say the public decides, through elected leaders.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

More than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the richest 2 percent of taxpayers, about 2.6 million people. Meanwhile, very few poor and working class people saw any benefit from the most recent wave of tax cuts. The bulk of ?investments? held by working class people are retirement accounts, and these aren?t even eligible for the cuts. In fact, the tax break on dividends applies only to stock held outside of retirement accounts--most of which is in the hands of the richest 1 percent of the population.

That's because they don't pay any fucking taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, that's not true. They might not pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax, gas taxes, and payroll taxes. They also pay social security and medicare, and medicaid if their state has it. So saying they pay no taxes isn't right, unless they do not work and do not purchase goods or services.

The article and the quote is about

income taxes

and Bush's income tax cuts and nothing else. In those terms my statement is completely correct.

The writers of that piece are being intellectually dishonest by making that statement.

Wrong again. Investment income taxes are not the same thing as income taxes. It's a subset. You need to read more carefully.

As usual, you miss the point - about who owns all those investments, and who benefits when there's an investment income tax cut.

You say the poor don't own investments as if you jut won the point, when you actually proved the other side's point about the issue with concentration of wealth.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So???

If you cut the bottom tax rate by 3% why shouldn't you cut the top rate by 3%??

Why is it acceptable to look at someone who makes $200k a year and decide that they already make too much money and don't deserve a tax cut?

Try $200M more than $200K. Why is it acceptable to decide they DO deserve a tax cut and increase our nation's deficit? If you want to cut spending, cut it. If you can't, you can't.

Who gets to decide what is 'fair' and what is not fair?

This is a great example of your blind ideology. It's sort of a rhetorical question implying the answer is 'no one'.

It's simply irrational. Then since 'no one' gets to decide that, we just can't have any taxes.

It's blathering irrationality by you. You are spewing nonsense that may sound like it has some point on the surface, but doesn't. Are you suggesting no one can decide that?

Who are YOU saying can decide it? I say the public decides, through elected leaders.

Everyone who likes taxes should move to California or NY. Their elected leaders are doing a great job. Free money in California folks.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Carmen, I would agree with most of your post.

The only time either side worked to control spending was during the 1990s, otherwise it has been spend spend spend.

I do disagree with the idea that Bush only helped the richest of Americans though. Due to his tax cuts the number of people paying NO income tax at all increased from around 33% to almost 40% if I remember correctly.

If you look at Bush's tax cuts in terms of percentage degrees in tax dollars paid then the poor did better off. (A guy who paid $400 a year under Clinton but $0 under Bush received a 100% decrease in his tax rate) But if you look at it in terms of actual dollars saved then of course the rich did better, they make so much more that they will always benefit when looking at tax cuts in this way.

My understanding was that most of the money lost in revenues came from cutting the taxes for the highest income bracket.

Of course it does. They pay all the taxes in the first place!!!!

The top 1% of earners pay more taxes than the bottom 50%!!! The top 5% of the country pays over half of all income taxes. When tax rates are skewed that much there is no way you can reduce taxes without the top earners gaining the largest share of those cuts.


Let me put this in dollar terms, using 2005 figures since they are the ones I have available.

According to the FY 2009 budget's historical charts PDF individual income taxes in 2005 amounted to 927 billion.

Based on the IRS 2005 tax share figures it breaks down like this: (the numbers are accumulative.)
Top 1% paid $361 billion in taxes
Top 5% paid $546 billion in taxes
Top 10% paid $649 billion in taxes
Top 25% paid $787 billion in taxes
Top 50% paid $889 billion in taxes

That means the bottom 50% paid only $38 billion in taxes.

Rather than posting the numbers as usual to rebut your propaganda, I'll point out the net effects:

Despite all your complaining about any statements that the rich pay too low taxes, they are getting practically all of the nation's growth over the last 25 years after inflation.

The post I made above had the following quote - a conservative set of numbers:

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

There has been an even higher skyrocketing of the wealth at the top and increase in the concentraiton of wealth.

So for all your propaganda about how high their taxes are, the net result is that they are leaving everyone else in the dust as they grab a far bigger share of the total pie.

Your irrational conclusion: it'd be wrong for their taxes to increase at all.

Top 20% up 139% after inflation, bottom 20% 8% after inflation - that's percent, so your usual nonsense about proportionality is not relevant - you say the rich have it tough.

The problem with those numbers is how the 20% grouping is too large, because within the top 20%, the growth is highly fixed at the top - the bottom 75% of the top 20% bracket got far less than those at the top - when you get to the top tenth or hundredth of the top 1%, you see the increase top 500%, compared to 13% for the middle and 8% for the bottom.

500% versus 8% - PERCENT - and you say the rich pay too much, or at worst, every cent they possibly should.