Poll: Bush's tax cuts..good or bad policy?

Alexadi

Junior Member
Sep 9, 2003
10
0
0
As a normal guy ( with a little bit of economic knowledge) I voted that it's a good ideea, because me keeping a buck is always better than giving it to the government to have them spend it "for me".
However, As I am currently a government employee, I can't help but to be grateful about you guys wanting to pay taxes, and probably wanting them increased, judging from this poll. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
It's funny, because I cannot really decide which stance to take on this issue.

From the point of view of a person who plans to be wealthy eventually, I couldn't care less - because in doing so, I will also take advantage of taxation laws to minimize my tax burden.

From the point of view of an economics student, it is a bit more mixed - an immediate boost to the economy (in terms of consumption of goods and services) would have been more effectively provided by some sort of a rebate or stimulus for those in the middle and lower income brackets, for the simple fact that they are more likely to spend what is inevitably a larger percentage of their income. (yay for MPC)

However, in the long term, the subtle boost provided by additional investment from the wealthiest income brackets will also have a beneficial effect.

So, I am neutral.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
Now Comrade Galt, I zink you have zeen ze light. ;) :p
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
Now Comrade Galt, I zink you have zeen ze light. ;) :p

The Proletarians of this country must unite and show that the wealthiest 1%, regardless if they have more education, more marketable skills, and a higher level of motivation to succeed in life, that they are just like everyone else. Just because the wealthiest 10% pays 2/3 of all taxes (roughly $460B) does not mean they should get more money back than those who contribute nothing to the system at all....proletarians are not free-riders; they are just socially disadvantaged and have for far too long been disenfranchised by our morally repugnant system of capitalism.

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
Now Comrade Galt, I zink you have zeen ze light. ;) :p

The Proletarians of this country must unite and show that the wealthiest 1%, regardless if they have more education, more marketable skills, and a higher level of motivation to succeed in life, that they are just like everyone else. Just because the wealthiest 10% pays 2/3 of all taxes (roughly $460B) does not mean they should get more money back than those who contribute nothing to the system at all....proletarians are not free-riders; they are just socially disadvantaged and have for far too long been disenfranchised by our morally repugnant system of capitalism.

Absolutely! Why should only some be poor, miserable, and downtrodden when all could be?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
Now Comrade Galt, I zink you have zeen ze light. ;) :p

The Proletarians of this country must unite and show that the wealthiest 1%, regardless if they have more education, more marketable skills, and a higher level of motivation to succeed in life, that they are just like everyone else. Just because the wealthiest 10% pays 2/3 of all taxes (roughly $460B) does not mean they should get more money back than those who contribute nothing to the system at all....proletarians are not free-riders; they are just socially disadvantaged and have for far too long been disenfranchised by our morally repugnant system of capitalism.

Absolutely! Why should only some be poor, miserable, and downtrodden when all could be?

I concur, sir. Now get to work! The proletarian movement is counting on you!

 

LordJezo

Banned
May 16, 2001
8,140
1
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
His tax-cuts were terrible public policy, as they hurt the poorest 1%. Although the poor contribute $239.54 a year in taxes, I think they should get the tax dollars the wealthiest 1% contribute, in the form of a rebate check. All poor people should get $19,873 in rebates this year and Jimmy Carter should be forced to build everyone a house.
Now Comrade Galt, I zink you have zeen ze light. ;) :p

The Proletarians of this country must unite and show that the wealthiest 1%, regardless if they have more education, more marketable skills, and a higher level of motivation to succeed in life, that they are just like everyone else. Just because the wealthiest 10% pays 2/3 of all taxes (roughly $460B) does not mean they should get more money back than those who contribute nothing to the system at all....proletarians are not free-riders; they are just socially disadvantaged and have for far too long been disenfranchised by our morally repugnant system of capitalism.

Oh thank goodness, I thought you were serious for a second.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
The 2001 tax cut phases out the inheritance tax. In 1999, only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half the tax was paid by only 3,300 estates worth more than $5 million. I'm so glad those dead millionares aren't getting robbed by the evil government anymore and that their spoiled brat kids who can't cut it on their own (those icons of capitalism) will get the full amount they are entitled to. Somehow, 49% of Americans were convinced earlier this year that "most" people had to pay the "death tax", it's a good thing Americans are easily misled by a simple change of terms.

Additional taxes collected from the overy hyped "growth effect" of tax cuts will not replace the revenue that could have been collected with the original taxes in place (Bush's CBO, stuffed with conservative economists, agrees on this point). Cuts in government revenue should be tied to cuts in government spending. The U.S. is proving incapable of paying down debt during good economic times, so it is folly to incur additional debt during bad economic times. Especially on the scales we're currently seeing (even w/o Iraq expenses, the government is doing some major deficit spending).

Families with incomes over $1 million a year -- a mere 0.13 percent of the population -- will receive 17.3 percent of this year's tax cut, more than the total received by the bottom 70 percent of American families. If the $1 million a year earners aren't enjoying the unfairness of being in a country that already had one of the lowest tax %s on the wealthy of any first world country, they should pick up and move to...

Bush sold his most recent tax cut as "92 million Americans will receive an average tax cut of $1,083". Gotta love averages. Half of American families who got anything got less than $100, and a large majority got less than $500. That leaves very few people to balance out the average to $1,083.

The only thing Bush's tax cuts are achieving as policy is crippling the government's ability to do any form of spending in the future (as debt payments continue to make up larger and larger portions of the yearly budget), and providing funds so millionares and their companies can invest more offshore / afford the fixed costs of moving entire divisions to India / contribute larger amounts the the Republican war chest. Great policy, if you hate American jobs and Democrats. Even worse, when the delayed punch tax cuts hit in a few years, we have no idea whether the economy will need stimulus or not, be in a period of growth or recession. Have to love economic policy that completely disregards the state of the economy.

My overall take - you don't like how the government spends its money, fine. Get your congressman/woman to cut that spending first before asking for "your money back". When the government is running a deficit there is no money to give back. Pay as you go. Eventually everyone's children (grandchildren if they're lucky) will have to pay the bill for the current set of cuts. The fact that Americans were fooled into ever supporting these cuts by a few changes of terminology and some funny statistics reflects very poorly on the state of independent thought in this country.

[Edit: interesting read on how the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), i.e. Bush's economists,
don't hold up the party line in their detailed reports to congress. Note the admission of a loose link between government debt and interest rates...]
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: naddicott
The only thing Bush's tax cuts are achieving as policy is crippling the government's ability to do any form of spending in the future (as debt payments continue to make up larger and larger portions of the yearly budget),

You act as if that's a bad thing!!!

My overall take - you don't like how the government spends its money, fine. Get your congressman/woman to cut that spending first before asking for "your money back". When the government is running a deficit there is no money to give back. Pay as you go. Eventually everyone's children (grandchildren if they're lucky) will have to pay the bill for the current set of cuts. The fact that Americans were fooled into ever supporting these cuts by a few changes of terminology and some funny statistics reflects very poorly on the state of independent thought in this country.

Regarding that whole Congressman thing, I already do that - I vote for the clown who promises the least amount of gov't goodies. Unfortunately, the rest of the country usually disagrees. Promising to cut anything in the budget is a quick way to loserville if you're running for office. Pay as you go is a nice idea, but neither major party supports it, and until the country starts going seriously bankrupt, the voters could care less.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
"Good idea, but bad in combo with the expensive Iraq war"

Borrow and spend is just as bad as tax and spend. Our country needs strong fiscal policy, and the people need to realize that government is not the cure to all that ails them.
Yes, we need lower taxes. Today's taxes are absolutely outrageous. But we need less spending even more.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
"Good idea, but bad in combo with the expensive Iraq war"

Borrow and spend is just as bad as tax and spend. Our country needs strong fiscal policy, and the people need to realize that government is not the cure to all that ails them.
Yes, we need lower taxes. Today's taxes are absolutely outrageous. But we need less spending even more.

Unfortunatly we have 50% of the population that pay almost nothing in taxes voting for spending out of the pockets of those that do pay taxes.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
"Good idea, but bad in combo with the expensive Iraq war"

Borrow and spend is just as bad as tax and spend. Our country needs strong fiscal policy, and the people need to realize that government is not the cure to all that ails them.
Yes, we need lower taxes. Today's taxes are absolutely outrageous. But we need less spending even more.
Unfortunatly we have 50% of the population that pay almost nothing in taxes voting for spending out of the pockets of those that do pay taxes.
I agree completely. Which is why most new tax measures put on the ballot pass with flying colors. Most voters aren't raising their taxes, they're raising someone else's taxes -- a joy for them I'm sure :disgust:

But that is the problem with all democracies, and why our Founding Fathers established a republic and most certainly not a democracy. As soon as the people find out that they can vote themselves other peoples' money, they won't stop. But the problem is that they MUST be stopped, otherwise total economic collapse is certain. The only question is when. Borrowed money is borrowed time in this case, nothing more.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
"Good idea, but bad in combo with the expensive Iraq war"

Borrow and spend is just as bad as tax and spend. Our country needs strong fiscal policy, and the people need to realize that government is not the cure to all that ails them.
Yes, we need lower taxes. Today's taxes are absolutely outrageous. But we need less spending even more.
Unfortunatly we have 50% of the population that pay almost nothing in taxes voting for spending out of the pockets of those that do pay taxes.
I agree completely. Which is why most new tax measures put on the ballot pass with flying colors. Most voters aren't raising their taxes, they're raising someone else's taxes -- a joy for them I'm sure :disgust:

But that is the problem with all democracies, and why our Founding Fathers established a republic and most certainly not a democracy. As soon as the people find out that they can vote themselves other peoples' money, they won't stop. But the problem is that they MUST be stopped, otherwise total economic collapse is certain. The only question is when. Borrowed money is borrowed time in this case, nothing more.

This is the reason I think tax cuts are good idea. Any money the goverment gets, will be spent.
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
"Good idea, but bad in combo with the expensive Iraq war"

Borrow and spend is just as bad as tax and spend. Our country needs strong fiscal policy, and the people need to realize that government is not the cure to all that ails them.
Yes, we need lower taxes. Today's taxes are absolutely outrageous. But we need less spending even more.

Unfortunatly we have 50% of the population that pay almost nothing in taxes voting for spending out of the pockets of those that do pay taxes.

Round and round the merry-go-round ;). I think I've made my position on this clear, but unfortunately, there isn't an option that fits with it in the poll. I don't like the government wasting my money any more than the next person. I could waste it just as easily on more noteworthy projects. However, I wouldn't mind helping the nation as a whole get back on its feet financially. If the money would go toward eliminating some of our debt and upgrading infrastructure I wouldn't complain about repealing the tax cut, would even support it.

And don't worry, I understand how unlikely that is.
 

daclayman

Golden Member
Sep 27, 2000
1,207
0
76
ACK! I think JohnGalt has lapsed on his prescription of Republicanex. Call a doctor quick. We can't lose another Bushite to the Commie Liberal Tree-Hugging Draft-Dodging Leftist Diaper-Wearing No Good Kick-Your-Own-Mother Communist Democrats!! Where's BigDude's psychic healing network when you need it??





















:D:beer:
 
Dec 8, 2002
68
0
0
I too feel sad that the wealthiest individuals in the world are being forced to give back to the government and society that allowed them their prosperity. Holy cow, stop the press, Mr. Smith can't afford another hummer this season! Tell that to the rest of the country that stuggles to make ends meet every month. The indiffernce and arrogance of you people amazes me.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
The first and second options should merge because nearly everyone benefitted from the two tax cuts, rich and poor. I think Bush tried to help everyone out but people still bitched and whined. I don't get it.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
I too feel sad that the wealthiest individuals in the world are being forced to give back to the government and society that allowed them their prosperity. Holy cow, stop the press, Mr. Smith can't afford another hummer this season! Tell that to the rest of the country that stuggles to make ends meet every month. The indiffernce and arrogance of you people amazes me.

Yes, It very sad that Mr smith would not have been able to afford that hummer. The hummer which employed autoworkers, the hummer that employed transport employees across the nation to his driveway, the hummer that sucks too much gas which employees people in the oil industry and lasty the kid accross the street from mr smith will not get paid to wash Mr Smith's hummer.

Yes these taxcuts for the rich need to be repealed.
 
Dec 8, 2002
68
0
0
It's perfectly understandable why people are bitching. The tax cuts would be justifiable if it were offset be decreased spending but instead it was "offset" by an incredibly costly war that had been "on hold" since '91.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
It's perfectly understandable why people are bitching. The tax cuts would be justifiable if it were offset be decreased spending but instead it was "offset" by an incredibly costly war that had been "on hold" since '91.

Spending cuts would have been quite nice, but those appear to be illegal in DC.