Who's getting all the tax breaks under Bush? NOT the middle class!

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ciba
The tax break was great for Washington (state). It significantly helps the middle class here. Not only do we get the tax break everyone else does, but now we can deduct our sales tax on our federal returns.

Same here in Nevada.

Those states that hav no income tax can not deduct tht sales tax on the Schedule A.

For those that believe the rob from the rich and givce to the poor, should take a look at the results in England.

Once the rich are emptied, then who is going to pay for the extras that the poor hav been given.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

What, did they kick you out of Off Topic?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

What, did they kick you out of Off Topic?

I've been reading P&N since it was a sticky thread at the top of OT. Just posted in spurts.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Nearly every expert agrees that the best way to stimulate the economy was to give a big tax break to the middle class.

This is not what Bush did. He gave the biggest tax breaks to the people who paid the most.

Different issues.

"nearly every expert"? right you mean your college proffessor. And its a big hoax, the middle class spends the money, and its gone, no jobs created. You have to remember if the same amount of money is moved to the middle class, the amount per person is much less, not enough to do anything permenent.

Even Karl Marx calls for large amounts of capital investment in the hands of a few as a way to spur the economy. (except in his case, economy=govt)

 

[Jhhnn]

Your premise works only in a closed system, Train. The global economy is not, at least not in terms of American investment. Cutting taxes for the financial elite has merely accelerated offshoring of jobs- they have the investment capital to do so. Otherwise, they'd be stuck with lower profits from their inefficient and expensive american means of production, we'd have more jobs.

You also confuse long term and short term stimulus. In classical Keynsian terms, the initial tax rebates made sense as a short term stimulus, even if they were counterproductively tilted towards the top incomes. As for the effects of long term taxcuts for the top incomes, see above....

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your premise works only in a closed system, Train. The global economy is not, at least not in terms of American investment. Cutting taxes for the financial elite has merely accelerated offshoring of jobs- they have the investment capital to do so. Otherwise, they'd be stuck with lower profits from their inefficient and expensive american means of production, we'd have more jobs.

You also confuse long term and short term stimulus. In classical Keynsian terms, the initial tax rebates made sense as a short term stimulus, even if they were counterproductively tilted towards the top incomes. As for the effects of long term taxcuts for the top incomes, see above....

In a global society my point is only emphasized more. What your suggesting sounds like stagnation, you make it sound like thier only choice with more money is to go overseas because they cant afford to invest it here? If a rich person cant afford to invest thier money here, who can? A socialist system, or even a country with traces of socialist or marxist practices, gets its ass handed to them by a country with a free market. Just look at how Japan and Taiwan took half the worlds market share in manufacturing right out from under our noses. US companies couldnt compete, jobs were lost, and now Honda an Toyota is wiping the floor with Ford & GM, and dont try the "cheaper labor" bit either, cost of living in Japan is much higher than most of America, they just did everything we did, and did it better, with less meddeling in the markets from the govt.

BTW, on the Worlds free market index, Taiwan is #1, Japan #2, Singapore #3

 

[Jhhnn]

From Train-

"What your suggesting sounds like stagnation, you make it sound like thier only choice with more money is to go overseas because they cant afford to invest it here?"

Not at all. The profit margin from offshore investment is simply larger. The law and sufficient Capital allow such moves to occur. From a Capitalist's perspective, they can't afford not to- their competitors are, and can afford to drive them out of business in a price war, if so inclined.

During the period of time that Japanese capitalism was at its zenith, labor was cheaper there. Their success forced upward valuation of the yen against the dollar, resulting in the situation today. It's really about the exchange rate. Their workforce has recently been suffering from outsourcing, as well.

The objective for American capitalists is to take advantage of the currently over valued dollar when investing overseas today, end up with their production assets on the other side when the dollar declines... Extremely low tax rates allow rapid capital accumulation, and explosive US govt borrowing soaks up all those excess overseas dollars- for awhile, anyway... artificially extending and expanding what would otherwise be a self-limiting situation.

 

[Train]

well then how would more money create jobs? It's still going to end up in the same place, in the hands of the business owners.

 

[piasabird]

I got my tax cut! It is more than I ever received from a liberal president.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

In CT:


1) The tax cuts to the rich account for 2/3 of todays national debt.
2) Dividends are taxed at 15% accross the board. Meaning wealthy people that make money by doing nothing, pay the LOWEST taxes in the country. They could get $1M in dividends and pay $150K in taxes.
1) My kids might not have school when they get older since they are all being shut down.
2) The interstate highways can not handle capacity.
3) tax cuts drive housing prices up since people can afford more.

That was easy. I'm sure I can think of more.

(1) The rich employee some 80+% of all Americans.
(2) You don't invest? Even a 401K?
(1A) Liberals have ruined the public school system to the point that teachers can't teach and many parents have put theor kids in private schools so they have some control over the education they recieve. Smaller schools close down and larger, consolidated schools replace them.
(2A) The Interstate highways are too busy on the eastern and western coasts for about a hundred miles. That is a population problem caused in part by all the liberals going to the big cities for the freebies (actually, I don't have a clue why people move to the big cities, but liberals love'em). Trucks are the most inefficient way to move cargo across the nation. Trucks have replaced everything else in inland cargo transportation - that crowds the highways and the weight of the trucks wear the highways prematurely.
(3A) And ONLY RICH people are buying the houses? You really blew it on that line. You just proved Bush's case for giving tax breaks so people have more marginal income to do things like BUY HOUSES!

That was sure easy!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Mediorce America has bough a 'Chump Change' payout of $ 500 to pacify them
and they tink they got a good deal - it's a sellout.

I got five grand back last year! Under Clinton, I always had to pay another three to four grand and I sure as hell ain't rich!

 

[Pliablemoose]

He he, I'm middle class & I got a tax break, a big one.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: tallest1
You actually think spending is going to be cut (with Republican-controled govt especially)? Talk about naive

I was in Washington three years after Clinton got into office. He was going to cut government spending. They even invited federal employees to send faxes to a number to tell them how to do this. After the dust settled, there were as many government employees from what I was seeing and a whole, new mass of contractors. The effect was most niticeable in the housing market on the beltway. Housing had been going down under senior Bush to the point that you had to take money to the table to SELL a house. The house I lived in started at 179K. Five and a half years later, the house I lived in was 319K.

Oh, so much for the claim that Bush's tax cuts have driven home prices up!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

What Bush has done cannot in any way be construed as fiscally conservative. He's increased the size of government, increased government spending, increased the national debt, incerased the deficit, and deferred payment for all of this to future generations.

No true conservative can agree with the Bush economic agenda. It's basically a give away to the people he has admitted are his base, the haves and the have mores, and corporate interests.

Wake up. Bush isn't a conservative. He's a predatory capitalist.

Link

Link

Link

Link

All while the Republicans are in control of BOTH houses of Congress. The Bush agenda is an economic disaster for America. For anyone to suggest otherwise is completely counter to the facts. Bush is in a fantasy world of his own design both on the economy and Iraq. Don't join him there.

I think WWII was an economic disaster for America, I think WWi was, I think Korea was, I think Vietnam was! Are you saying that Bush should have just said "let's just forget the attack and rebuild the towers"? You may have missed it, but we were attacked in the eight month of his presidency. Clinton had the benefit of Bill Gates Microsoft bubble that he enjoyed while he tried to destroy his golden goose with an anti-trust suit. Clinton just got economically lucky with IT peaking during his administration.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your raving reflects some of the profound ignorance often expressed by delusional rightwing zealots, Condor. There aren't any more freebies available in LA than in Podunk Iowa- just more and better paying jobs. That's why the urbanization you apparently loathe occurs, is because that's where Capitalists make jobs available.

The reason that trucks carry most cargo is that the railroads have no desire to and are incompetent at delivering small to medium sized lots of goods in a timely fashion. Their idea of how to make money is to run coal trains on a schedule, the rest of it merely being a necessary nuisance- the less of it they have to put up with, the better.

WTF do public schools have to do with the topic at hand?

The housing market has benefitted largely because of extremely low interest rates and also extremely creative financing plans that make it all seem affordable. The vast majority of new financing is done with ARM's and even more deceptive flimflammery. Meanwhile, real wages decline, interest rates go up, along with the cost of energy, healthcare, insurance, and food...

Ready for the next bubble to burst? It's the real estate bubble... The much touted third quarter growth in GDP was due largely to refinancing and cashout of equity in real estate- that's not prosperity, that's illusion- liquidating assets to pay off liabilities... Few people actually own homes, they merely have mortgages- increasingly for more than even the bloated current market value of their property.

Which is what the Federal govt will end up doing unless this don't tax and spend even more fiscal joke of Republicanism ends- selling off assets to make the interest payments on money borrowed to cut taxes for the financial elite, who use it to finance the offshoring of our own jobs... Maybe they'll put a giant waterslide down the face of El Capitan after it's sold off to some giant entertainment conglomerate...

 

[Train]

I dont know who your calling delusional, you keep harping on about how money in the hands of the business owners is going to be a catalyst for offshoring of jobs. Even if that were the case (which in itself is highyl delusional) You suggest letting them maintain thier current "ineffecient" operations here as you suggest, because they cant "finance" moving overseas, therefore preserving jobs here. Well newslfash, theres alot of business owners in other countries, not just laborers. If your businesses cant modernize due to lack of capital, the products and services they sell will be replaced by cheaper and better goods from thier overseas competitors, and are forced to close thier local operations anyways. Now your even worse than when you started, the middle class doesnt have jobs, the businesses cant afford to create any(and subsequently go OUT of business), and all of our money is going to overseas companies, great, now lets see you unfvck that mess.

 

[Jhhnn]

That reference wasn't to you, Train. please. Read the first sentence again.

What I see happening is that an extremely small % of the population benefitting tremendously from both the taxcuts and offshoring of jobs, much to the detriment of everybody else. Huge federal deficits only make it worse, effectively postponing devaluation of the dollar, which would promote job creation here, rather than there...

What happened to the Argentines is instructive, even though that process is poorly understood by Americans in general. Their currency was pegged against the dollar, and their govt borrowed huge sums, most of which ended up in the pockets of their own financial elite. What happened is that foreign goods became unbelievably cheap, and their own industries declined, disappeared, even their formerly world famous cattle business. It all felt great, for awhile, until the interest payments became unsupportable, and their currency collapsed. Their problem was compounded by the fact that their debts were in terms of dollars, rather than their own currency... Severe austerity measures and giveaway privatization ensued, per their creditors, obliterating their middle class... Their Rich, of course, did just fine, being heavily invested in multinational bluechips, paid for rental property, international real estate... While everybody else took the shaft, they were sittin' pretty, having exploited the artificially high valuation of their currency to get the most out of foreign investment... Sound familiar?

Most of us, even those fortunate enough to have investments in 401K's, are pretty much chained to the oars of the American economy. Not so for those at the very top- they can make money by sinking the ship, sending us down with her, which is precisely what's happening.

 

[EDoG2K]

best way to fuel the economy is tax cuts for the poor + lower-middle-class.

Will a $30 million dollar tax cut for the Bush family empire help our economy? Well.. maybe they'll invest it, right? Sure, but they won't be buying a few thousand Chevys or hiring a couple thousand new employees, will they? No, businesses don't run like that. It just further increases their profit margin.

Now you give that same $30 million dollars to the poor and middle class, and they are stupid. They spend it on Chevys and TVs and a new, bigger house, pouring the money straight back into the economy. Some people say it will land back in the hands of the rich again, which it might, but why cut out the litttle guy!

 

[dannybin1742]

well lets see, my parents got nothing back, 2 mortgages, 3 kids in college, and i got nothing back either, nice tax cut

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K
best way to fuel the economy is tax cuts for the poor + lower-middle-class.

You mean lower than the $0 they currently pay in federal income tax?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/zerotaxfilers.html

roughly 122 million Americans ? 44 percent of the U.S. population ? are outside of the federal income tax system.

So by "tax cuts" you actually mean some sort of welfare payment akin to the EITC?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
well lets see, my parents got nothing back, 2 mortgages, 3 kids in college, and i got nothing back either, nice tax cut

Actually, you did. The bottom bracket was cut from 15% to 10% on the first $12,000 giving you up to an additional $600 back depending on if you made more or less than $12,000. (this was the first round of tax cuts).

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

What Bush has done cannot in any way be construed as fiscally conservative. He's increased the size of government, increased government spending, increased the national debt, incerased the deficit, and deferred payment for all of this to future generations.

No true conservative can agree with the Bush economic agenda. It's basically a give away to the people he has admitted are his base, the haves and the have mores, and corporate interests.

Wake up. Bush isn't a conservative. He's a predatory capitalist.

Link

Link

Link

Link

All while the Republicans are in control of BOTH houses of Congress. The Bush agenda is an economic disaster for America. For anyone to suggest otherwise is completely counter to the facts. Bush is in a fantasy world of his own design both on the economy and Iraq. Don't join him there.

I think WWII was an economic disaster for America

then you need to retake some history classes

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K
best way to fuel the economy is tax cuts for the poor + lower-middle-class.

Will a $30 million dollar tax cut for the Bush family empire help our economy? Well.. maybe they'll invest it, right? Sure, but they won't be buying a few thousand Chevys or hiring a couple thousand new employees, will they? No, businesses don't run like that. It just further increases their profit margin.

Now you give that same $30 million dollars to the poor and middle class, and they are stupid. They spend it on Chevys and TVs and a new, bigger house, pouring the money straight back into the economy. Some people say it will land back in the hands of the rich again, which it might, but why cut out the litttle guy!

$30 million to "poor and lower middle class" sounds so sweet, but we are talking tax cuts here not handouts. if you spread 30 million out over the poor, who pay nothing, they get nothing back, spread it out over the lowest tax bracket, (roughly 30 Milllion people) each person gets a dollar back. ya im sure thats gonna spur them to go buy a new car.

And if your speaking percentages, lets say instead of the 5% cut the middle class got, make it 10%, The avg american makes $32k, 5% more back in taxes will only give them another $30 a week. Again, not expecting any frenzies at the car dealerships.

 

[Grunt03]

I'm not getting enought thats for sure...