how was this tax cut supposed to help the middle class?

[dannybin1742]

personally i don't see anything in our economy that agrees with what the reds have been screaming for the last 3 years ("the economy is the strongest we have ever seen"), here is a nice analysis with inflation, wage growth, everything on whats happening to 90% of american families. have fun reading, supply siders, its based on cencus numbers


fun with real numbers

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
personally i don't see anything in our economy that agrees with what the reds have been screaming for the last 3 years ("the economy is the strongest we have ever seen"), here is a nice analysis with inflation, wage growth, everything on whats happening to 90% of american families. have fun reading, supply siders, its based on cencus numbers


fun with real numbers

The resident Republicans will come in here as usual as deny the above article and graphs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Interesting until they started putting cause/effect against the numbers.

I could also state the the recessioin coincided with the slump in household income. People were dumped out of work due to the .COM balloon pop.

Without the tax cut, do you think they would be better off having less income available?

 

[inhotep]

Tactic to slash taxes across the board, there for, rich will also receive tax cut. They don't specify anything like "tax cut for this bracket," so it means tax cut for every bracket. This will not benefit the middle class, as much as some none rich people may think. Considering the statistics for the past 20 years, while our economy grew, our debt grew as well. I'm not saying they should rise taxes but keep lowering taxes is just a lay for the middle-low class people. Lower taxes can be good or bad, but statistics are more reliable than theories on tax cuts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dagnabit, dannybin, you ought to know better than to introduce real numbers to any discussion of economics.... It's all about theory, and theoretical curves, and dancing on the head of a pin...

Taxcuts for those at the top have stimulated the economy, of those at the top... their share of total income grows faster than you can count it... and accelerates every time their taxes are cut... so I guess we'll just have to wait for those vaunted effects of trickledown to occur... If you're old enough, you might recall that you've already waited 20 years... guess we just haven't cut taxes far enough for those folks to have the effects kick in...

Maybe we'll get some elliptical references to the so-called "Laffer Curve" in here... yeh, that's it... it's a laffer, alright, a very few beneficiaries are laffing all the way to the bank...

And those enormous deficits aren't a smokescreen, a way to creat the illusion of prosperity- heavens no.... why, we can support infinite borrowing, forever, there will never be a downside, a day of reckoning...

Projected deficit for 2006- a mere $650B- heck, we can afford it, let's see if we can make that an even trillion by 2009... let's cut taxes some more, invade Iran, build up the military to keep the evil Kim out of our livingrooms.... beef up security and build more prisons, 'cause we're gonna need 'em when the poo hits the fan...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Dagnabit, dannybin, you ought to know better than to introduce real numbers to any discussion of economics.... It's all about theory, and theoretical curves, and dancing on the head of a pin...

Taxcuts for those at the top have stimulated the economy, of those at the top... their share of total income grows faster than you can count it... and accelerates every time their taxes are cut... so I guess we'll just have to wait for those vaunted effects of trickledown to occur... If you're old enough, you might recall that you've already waited 20 years... guess we just haven't cut taxes far enough for those folks to have the effects kick in...

Maybe we'll get some elliptical references to the so-called "Laffer Curve" in here... yeh, that's it... it's a laffer, alright, a very few beneficiaries are laffing all the way to the bank...

And those enormous deficits aren't a smokescreen, a way to creat the illusion of prosperity- heavens no.... why, we can support infinite borrowing, forever, there will never be a downside, a day of reckoning...

Projected deficit for 2006- a mere $650B- heck, we can afford it, let's see if we can make that an even trillion by 2009... let's cut taxes some more, invade Iran, build up the military to keep the evil Kim out of our livingrooms.... beef up security and build more prisons, 'cause we're gonna need 'em when the poo hits the fan...

Speaking of that laffer curve, tax revenues are going up and rich are paying a larger percentage of the tax burdon. I guess you see that as a bad thing.

Provided the fed does not too crazy with huricane money this year the defecit should shrink again next year. And the more important debt to gdp will continue going down...

 

[EagleKeeper]

To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

 

[Strk]

Tax cuts are fine - I know I'd like more of them - but you can't give tax cuts and increase spending, especially at record levels.

I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Jhhnn]

From charrison-

"Speaking of that laffer curve, tax revenues are going up and rich are paying a larger percentage of the tax burdon. I guess you see that as a bad thing. "

Yeh, but their share of the tax burden isn't rising as fast as their share of income, and the total tax burden isn't actually paying the bills, now is it?

From Eaglekeeper-

" To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

When I make as much money as they do, silly boy... paying an average of <23% federal taxes on an average income of $174M, like the top 400 incomes, isn't exactly my idea of a "burden"....

Please, please, mr wolf, do anything you want, but don't throw me into that briarpatch....

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
Provided the fed does not too crazy with huricane money this year the defecit should shrink again next year. And the more important debt to gdp will continue going down...

If (big if) the projections of nearly $200 billion for all hurricane relief is added, I don't see how this will be possible. Consider the medicare prescription pork bill, road pork bills and energy pork bills thrown in there, I don't see it going down at this point. I think 2005, which is the first year in 5 years to show a "decline" in the year over year deficit, will be but a small blip on the radar for at least a few more years, even with solid GDP growth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Eaglekeeper-

" To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

When I make as much money as they do, silly boy... paying an average of <23% federal taxes on an average income of $174M, like the top 400 incomes, isn't exactly my idea of a "burden"....

Please, please, mr wolf, do anything you want, but don't throw me into that briarpatch....

If you want their tax bracket to up 5%, then why should not yours be also upped 5%?

Or you only want to rob Peter to give money to Paul; and are unwilling to give your own money to Paul?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting until they started putting cause/effect against the numbers.

I could also state the the recessioin coincided with the slump in household income. People were dumped out of work due to the .COM balloon pop.

Without the tax cut, do you think they would be better off having less income available?

I think we need to be careful of perspective. The dotcom bust had differential effects based on your profession and where you lived. Service employee in Omaha . . . SSDD. Programmer in the Bay or Valley . . . sux to be you.

The tax cut was quite "uneven" as well. An equitable tax cut (say temporary FICA repeal) would have propped up everyone's wages . . . every year. It would be unambiguous that everyone would be better off than having less income available.

Instead, most people got a little, people with kids got a little more, and people with mad income and capital gains got a windfall. Going forwards the discrepancy gets even worse.

If you are a student, small farmer, dependent on the VA/Medicaid, get food stamps, or generally live paycheck to paycheck . . . you are either treading water or sinking with Bush policies.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
Provided the fed does not too crazy with huricane money this year the defecit should shrink again next year. And the more important debt to gdp will continue going down...

If (big if) the projections of nearly $200 billion for all hurricane relief is added, I don't see how this will be possible. Consider the medicare prescription pork bill, road pork bills and energy pork bills thrown in there, I don't see it going down at this point. I think 2005, which is the first year in 5 years to show a "decline" in the year over year deficit, will be but a small blip on the radar for at least a few more years, even with solid GDP growth.

It looks like there is not going to be further huricane money. Looks like they are stopping at around the 60B mark now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Eaglekeeper-

" To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

When I make as much money as they do, silly boy... paying an average of <23% federal taxes on an average income of $174M, like the top 400 incomes, isn't exactly my idea of a "burden"....

Please, please, mr wolf, do anything you want, but don't throw me into that briarpatch....

If you want their tax bracket to up 5%, then why should not yours be also upped 5%?

Or you only want to rob Peter to give money to Paul; and are unwilling to give your own money to Paul?

dont tax me, tax the man behind the tree!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting until they started putting cause/effect against the numbers.

I could also state the the recessioin coincided with the slump in household income. People were dumped out of work due to the .COM balloon pop.

Without the tax cut, do you think they would be better off having less income available?

I think we need to be careful of perspective. The dotcom bust had differential effects based on your profession and where you lived. Service employee in Omaha . . . SSDD. Programmer in the Bay or Valley . . . sux to be you.

The tax cut was quite "uneven" as well. An equitable tax cut (say temporary FICA repeal) would have propped up everyone's wages . . . every year. It would be unambiguous that everyone would be better off than having less income available.

Instead, most people got a little, people with kids got a little more, and people with mad income and capital gains got a windfall. Going forwards the discrepancy gets even worse.

If you are a student, small farmer, dependent on the VA/Medicaid, get food stamps, or generally live paycheck to paycheck . . . you are either treading water or sinking with Bush policies.

The problem is that people do not like the fact that the Jones got more (even though they ignore that the Jone's pay more).

If they dumped the FICA, then people would complain that the small business owner got twice as much as the working stiff.

And if the working stiff save $10/week; then they would bitch that some-one else that got a savings of $20/wk shoudl not have becuase they have more income.

Again, those that complain the loudest are those that want to take from anybody but themselves.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

Right now! Cause that would mean I'd be in the same income bracket.

-My dad always said that if your problem is that you have to pay taxes, you have a good problem.

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: Strk
Tax cuts are fine - I know I'd like more of them - but you can't give tax cuts and increase spending, especially at record levels.

I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I agree. Why don't people get this? You cannot have it both ways.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

Right now! Cause that would mean I'd be in the same income bracket.

-My dad always said that if your problem is that you have to pay taxes, you have a good problem.

We are talking about paying the same percentage. Nothing to do with tax brackets.

 

[Polish3d]

I still tend to believe that the "tax the rich" philosophy often only taxes the upper class rather than the uber rich because those people can afford to pay very little. I remember when Kerry's wife was shown to be paying some smaller percentage than most average people. (IIRC)

I also am appalled to see some people here say they wish to taxt the rich to be punitive... this essentailly means that these people are angry because they are not rich and are basing their opinions on that, which shows an amazing immaturity and I would never take seriously anything they have to say.

 

[dannybin1742]

Without the tax cut, do you think they would be better off having less income available?

i don't know what income you are talking about, my parents are middle class, financially responsible, save money, and had three kids (dependents) and saw absolutely nothing in the form of a tax cut

and if you think giving a millionare more cash to play with in the form of a tax cut, you are saddly mistaken, i don't know how many threads i've seen where people report that he economy is just doing great because corp. profits are at all time highs, yet at the same time we have yet to see the promised jobs the supply siders keep spouting that the tac cut created, go figure

 

[dannybin1742]

Taxcuts for those at the top have stimulated the economy, of those at the top... their share of total income grows faster than you can count it... and accelerates every time their taxes are cut... so I guess we'll just have to wait for those vaunted effects of trickledown to occur... If you're old enough, you might recall that you've already waited 20 years... guess we just haven't cut taxes far enough for those folks to have the effects kick in...

actually i'm about 24 and about a year and a half away froma phd in biochem.

i feel sorry for these reds, i was talking to a friend in med school, and he was telling me 95 of his 110 class were hard core democrats and the pubs he met were only moderate repubs, who going to be left to feed the republican machine when most people who will be making lots o money in next 20 years are all democrats? i alos have two friends in dental school they tell me the same thing, and i have yet to meet a grad student in the sciences here that is not a democrat

 

[Jhhnn]

From charrison-

"If you want their tax bracket to up 5%, then why should not yours be also upped 5%?

Or you only want to rob Peter to give money to Paul; and are unwilling to give your own money to Paul?"

You're making certain assumptions that aren't true, namely that the federal income tax is progressive at the very high end. It's not. The top 1% averages ~27%, while the top 400 Average only ~23%.

You also ignore the simple fact that federal income taxes aren't the only tax. Folks who earn <$90K pay an additional surtax of 6.5% in the form of SS on every dollar. Their employers match it. People above that figure pay less, amounting to a tiny fraction of income for those at the top, and also for their employers. Given that the whole SS program is threatened by other explosive debt, taxpayers may well find that they've merely paid a highly regressive surtax since 1984, that the Trust simply can't be repaid as promised because of other debt. 13% of all income below the SS cutoff for 30 years or so will have effectively been transferred to those way, way above the cutoff using the vehicle of intentional imbalance of tax revenue, SS revenue and borrowing vs ruinous expenditures.

The whole argument of flat taxes falls flat on its face when viewed from the perspective of the tremendous opportunity this country affords to those of means, and also from the perspective of what's left at the bottom line, regardless of the purported tax rate. Nowhere else can investors find the combination of stability and growth offered by the US. And even if tax rates on huge incomes are higher than the rest, that's not the point- the point is what's left. Even at a 32% effective federal tax rate, the top 400 incomes would still have $120M/yr to spend, which should support even a very large extended family in high style...

Few advocates of rightwing tax schemes understand how income and tax rates are distributed in America. For income, there is a gradual increase up to the 99.7% level, and then the curve explodes vertically... which is the same place where effective tax rates begin to drop off, resulting in the richest paying a lower rate than the merely affluent... on incomes orders of magnitude greater than those immediately below their own... This was true even before the Bush cuts, and is even more pronounced today...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From EagleKeeper-

"If you want their tax bracket to up 5%, then why should not yours be also upped 5%?

Or you only want to rob Peter to give money to Paul; and are unwilling to give your own money to Paul?"

You're making certain assumptions that aren't true, namely that the federal income tax is progressive at the very high end. It's not. The top 1% averages ~27%, while the top 400 Average only ~23%.

You also ignore the simple fact that federal income taxes aren't the only tax. Folks who earn <$90K pay an additional surtax of 6.5% in the form of SS on every dollar. Their employers match it. People above that figure pay less, amounting to a tiny fraction of income for those at the top, and also for their employers. Given that the whole SS program is threatened by other explosive debt, taxpayers may well find that they've merely paid a highly regressive surtax since 1984, that the Trust simply can't be repaid as promised because of other debt. 13% of all income below the SS cutoff for 30 years or so will have effectively been transferred to those way, way above the cutoff using the vehicle of intentional imbalance of tax revenue, SS revenue and borrowing vs ruinous expenditures.

The whole argument of flat taxes falls flat on its face when viewed from the perspective of the tremendous opportunity this country affords to those of means, and also from the perspective of what's left at the bottom line, regardless of the purported tax rate. Nowhere else can investors find the combination of stability and growth offered by the US. And even if tax rates on huge incomes are higher than the rest, that's not the point- the point is what's left. Even at a 32% effective federal tax rate, the top 400 incomes would still have $120M/yr to spend, which should support even a very large extended family in high style...

Few advocates of rightwing tax schemes understand how income and tax rates are distributed in America. For income, there is a gradual increase up to the 99.7% level, and then the curve explodes vertically... which is the same place where effective tax rates begin to drop off, resulting in the richest paying a lower rate than the merely affluent... on incomes orders of magnitude greater than those immediately below their own... This was true even before the Bush cuts, and is even more pronounced today...

fixed for you...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
personally i don't see anything in our economy that agrees with what the reds have been screaming for the last 3 years ("the economy is the strongest we have ever seen"), here is a nice analysis with inflation, wage growth, everything on whats happening to 90% of american families. have fun reading, supply siders, its based on cencus numbers


fun with real numbers

Article in today's paper that personal income is down $40 billion dollars.

I will try and find an online link.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
To all those people that want to tax the rich. When are you willing to pay at the same percentage that they are in?

As soon as I have that kind of money that money is no object just like them.