Only Tax Rich People?

from JoeUser Forums

There are several great debates going on today, 3 by Brad (most of the posters are anonymous, but most are keeping it civil as well).  Then Moderateman has a good one going that is now starting to digress, and I did not want to drag that one farther off topic responding to one point made, but felt it should be addressed.  It would have been much better in one of Brad's Instapundit articles.

Sean Conners made this point:

but you are correct in knowing that no democrat has suggested that they want to balance the budget by raising taxes on anyone earning less than 200,000 dollars a year in their campaigns. in fact many have called for tax cuts for "the rest of us." and elimination of tax for more poor americans.

While I have not been paying attention to exactly what the democrats are saying, for I know they are not talking "raising" taxes, they don't have to do anything to raise them.  They just merely have to wait for the last tax cut to sunset, and viola!  The taxes are going up.  But I did not actually want to discuss even that here as that is a debate in itself.

Instead I want to concentrate on Sean's statement.  Let us for the sake of argument assume it is true and that democrats really do have a plan (that would be one).  So they eliminate taxes on all poor people.  OK, first we have to define what poor is, and then what we mean by eliminating taxes on them.

OK, for the sake here, lets say that poor is any family of 4 making less than $40k/year.

Now here starts the problems.  The first problem is that while today,  a person making $40k may be considered middle class, that was not so 50 years ago.  When the Income tax amendment was passed 100 years ago, it was only supposed to tax the wealthy, and then only 1%.  Well, any working American knows that is not true today.  So what happened?  Wages went up, but the tax stayed the same or went up in rate.  Not until Reagan did we get indexing for inflation, and then not totally.

So the democrats say they only want to soak the rich.  Rich being over $200k.  Today.  So we soak them.  In 20 years, $200k is going to be middle income, and then eventually poor, but the soaking will not stop.  There are 2 things certain in life - death and taxes, and to that you can add a third, a politician never has enough money to spend.  So tax cuts are rare, and not to be trifled with.

But the democrats will promise today to soak the rich and give to the poor (modern day Jesse James, aren't they?).  But they will not change that and in a few years, all of a sudden, they will be soaking the middle class, and wondering why couples need 2 incomes to merely stay even with the previous generation.

The second problem is that no democrat, OR republican can ELIMINATE taxes on any working person!  There are 2 reasons for that.  One is that they do not want to due to the most powerful lobby in America.  The second is that they cannot because they do not have the power.

The first reason, is the most regressive tax in existence, and one that will never go away, just get worse.  That is Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid tax.  Both have cut offs that leave the richest Americans not paying it after a certain amount of time, but the poor never stop paying it.  And make no mistake, you can call it whatever you want to, but the truth is it is a tax.  That one will never be touched because it is the "third rail" of politics, and the most powerful lobby, AARP, will make any politician pay with their career if they do.  So forget about eliminating that tax.  It wont happen.

The second reason, is that the politicians do not have the power to do it.  What?  A tax they cannot touch? Yes, if you look at politicians as being either state, or federal.  Federal politicians cannot eliminate state income taxes, state sales taxes (the second most regressive tax in existence), personal property tax, real estate tax, and a host of other taxes levied by state and local governments.  They do not have the jurisdiction or the guts to tackle any of those.

So when you hear a politician saying they are going "to eliminate taxes on the poor", they are lying through their teeth, and they know it.  At best they can be honest in their intentions and ignorant of taxes (but I doubt they would get as far as they did being stupid) and at worse they are using sophistry to try to get votes, knowing they cannot.  And indeed, in the near future, that they will be taxing those same "poor" people again as wages and inflation push them out of the "poor" category and into the "rich" category.

politics
14,668 views 50 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
. 4 ur birthday! since I cannot comment on the above!   
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
... all we have to do is periodically re-define tax brackets to reflect inflation. That way, those who make 200k in 30 years, who you claim will be the 'new middle class,' won't necessarily have to pay more, percentage-wise, then they do now.

It isn't as if this is exactly a new idea, man
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

. 4 ur birthday! since I cannot comment on the above!

Sure you can!  Anyone can comment, even the rich!

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

It isn't as if this is exactly a new idea, man

But a very seldom (as in once) used one.  And they have been trying to repeal it since they passed it 25 years ago.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was the writer 'ummm' above.

So what if it has only been used once? It isn't a hard to understand concept that taxes can be indexed to inflation. Your argument fails under examination of the facts.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
nice of you to take a gerneral comment and turn it into a policy thing...

but before i start, if you are gonna use my name, spell it correctly please.

what i was suggesting was at the federal level, eliminate federal income taxes. what states do is up to them. ss and such is fixed, yes. maybe you misread what i wrote or didn't understand the context, which is ok,,,i just wanted to explain it more clearly.

i think ya just "nitpicked" that for your agenda.

i stand by my statement...i have seen no democrat even suggest raising taxes on people earning less than 200,000 a year in their campaign speeches or statements or anything. . that number defines the top few percent of our country currently. of course inflationary adjustments would be made over time. of course no politician at the federal level has any control at the state or local level. those are battles for those politicians.

your "slippery slope" argument is just your opinion and speculation. i don't share that view.

So when you hear a politician saying they are going "to eliminate taxes on the poor", they are lying through their teeth, and they know it.

no they are not, they are usually qualifying it more than i did. and i did that (not qualifying it) for conciseness. my article was about making some brief points, not spelling out policy in detail.

we won't be able to eliminate a gas tax or sales tax to a poor person either. but when someone at the federal level speaks of "eliminating" taxes on the poor, they are of course talking about taxes they have some control on, namely, income tax. you knew that too, and so does everyone else. again, you took a statement and twisted the intent. that's not very nice, lol.

on a lighter note,,,happy birthday and many more:)
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

So what if it has only been used once? It isn't a hard to understand concept that taxes can be indexed to inflation. Your argument fails under examination of the facts.

no, it is not a hard concept.  And you jump too wildly too conclusions.  You debate one point of many, and then state my argument fails?  I think not. 

But to get to your one point, it has been done once.  Show me the guarantee it will be used again.  Then I will beleive you.  Not until.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

but before i start, if you are gonna use my name, spell it correctly please.

My Appologies.  I have corrected it.

what i was suggesting was at the federal level, eliminate federal income taxes. what states do is up to them. ss and such is fixed, yes. maybe you misread what i wrote or didn't understand the context, which is ok,,,i just wanted to explain it more clearly.

Ok, let me state here for all to see.  I took your quote, but in no way was trying to say that was your policy or what you were advocating, just showing what some democrats (the ones running, not you as you are libertarian) were saying.

But on that note, the electorate they are preaching to, do not differentiate between Aunt Jenny, and Uncle Sam, so the politicians should.  But that was not the lying or naive part that I was referring to.

no they are not, they are usually qualifying it more than i did. and i did that (not qualifying it) for conciseness. my article was about making some brief points, not spelling out policy in detail.

Before hitting this point, let me point out that a blog is an opinion, and I did not hide that this was mine.  I did throw in some supporting facts to my opinion, but no where did I say that this was God's Law and uncontestable fact.

But to this point, I have yet to hear any politician qualify it beyond the simple "taxes".  Here in Va, that is a big issue, and the democrat has stated he wants to increase revenue (how is that for a silver tongue devil - it is on tape), but denies he wants to raise taxes.  Sorry Jimmy, you cant have it both ways.

So again, yes it is my opinion, and if I implied it was your policy, I will appologize again.  It was just a statement you made in passing on another blog that I picked up on and then ran with.

we won't be able to eliminate a gas tax or sales tax to a poor person either. but when someone at the federal level speaks of "eliminating" taxes on the poor, they are of course talking about taxes they have some control on, namely, income tax. you knew that too, and so does everyone else. again, you took a statement and twisted the intent. that's not very nice, lol.

Ok, so far you and Cycloptichorn have ignored one big salient point I have made.  Given that a politician might mean only federal taxes (and tell that to the WP when it accused Bush of actually raising taxes), you both ignored FICA and Medicaid taxes.  Call them what you want, but they are the most regressive, and under complete control of congress.  And every poor person, even the one making $1 a year, has to pay it.

And on the last note, thanks!  Big 50 Friday!  Almost qualify for the AARP!

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top


no, it is not a hard concept. And you jump too wildly too conclusions. You debate one point of many, and then state my argument fails? I think not.

But to get to your one point, it has been done once. Show me the guarantee it will be used again. Then I will beleive you. Not until.


Nothing is guaranteed in life. To claim that there is no way that taxes can be kept from soaking the middle class - or even that they won't be kept from doing so - when an easily and readily available way, one that is respected by the vast majority of lawmakers, one that has been used sucessfully in the past - is ludicrous.

I didn't mean to single out one argument, but the rest of your points are assertions. Without facts to back them up, they really aren't anything other than opinion.

Why assertions? Because you discount the fact that some people, including most Democrats, feel that Social Security and Medicaid are at heart a good idea. They aren't against cutting it because of fear of AARP, but because they support the programs themselves.

Also, this
And make no mistake, you can call it whatever you want to, but the truth is it is a tax.


Is a little of a stretch. Can you name any other 'tax' that directly becomes money in your pocket, paid to you out of the funds that you and other citizens like you put into the government? You really have to stretch the idea of what a 'tax' is to call SS a tax.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is a little of a stretch. Can you name any other 'tax' that directly becomes money in your pocket, paid to you out of the funds that you and other citizens like you put into the government? You really have to stretch the idea of what a 'tax' is to call SS a tax

No, and not that one either.  It is not a savings account, not even a promise to pay.  It is a ponzi scheme that masquerades as a tax.  And badly at that.  My assertions, you decided not to address.  Whether you, me reid or Pelosi think SS is a good idea is irrelevant.  I like skunks.  But that does not make them smell good.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whether something smells good or not is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

I understand that it's very easy for you to throw around talking points about Social Security ('ponzi scheme,' etc) but the reality is that it not only works, it works well, and has done so for millions of Americans every month for quite a long time now. My grandparents receive SS checks. I would bet that the vast majority of elderly people in the US do. So it is somewhat difficult to claim that it is a 'ponzi scheme' given the fact that it has a gigantic record of success, more than the vast majority of gov't programs.

I didn't address your assertions, because there isn't any reason to; without the backing of some argument with factual basis, they are immaterial to the discussion.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Whether something smells good or not is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

In case you have not noticed, this is a BLOG.  Not a news source.  hence, since I provided no links to FACTS, it is my OPINION.  However, I would expect people to realize that and not take it as gospel.  I hate having to write disclaimers every other sentence.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
You of course don't have to write any disclaimers that you don't wish to write; but when you use poor metaphors and fail to provide evidence to back up arguments that you have made, you shouldn't be surpised when others are skeptical of those arguments.

I note that you failed to address the meat of my post, namely, that SS has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

You of course don't have to write any disclaimers that you don't wish to write; but when you use poor metaphors and fail to provide evidence to back up arguments that you have made, you shouldn't be surpised when others are skeptical of those arguments.

I note that you failed to address the meat of my post, namely, that SS has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades.

Forgive me for having a life.

But I did not provide facts as it was my opinion.  You want facts?  What was the original SS tax rate, and the maximum in the account.  How many times has it been raised?  How many more times does it have to be raised to be viable?  Do you know what a ponzi scheme is?  If you do not, google it.  Then you will see that SS is not working.  It is a ponzi scheme that can only survive if the base continues to increase.  A supposition that the evidence does not support.  No, you have done nothing but what you accused me of, and badly at that.  I wrote an opinion.  You supposedly refuted some of it with facts, but provided none.  That is your choice.  But do not call the kettle black pot.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wrong again; I did present a fact, namely, that Social Security has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades. That isn't an assertion or an opinion, it is a fact. Such a universally recognized fact that noone even argues that it is true.

I took your advice and googled 'ponzi scheme.' It wasn't very illustrative of anything other than the fact that you don't understand how Social Security works very well. Critics of the program talk about how the program will fail at some point because the numbers of investors will be far smaller than the number of beneficiaries. And this is true to a point. But it leaves out several very important facts:

First, Social Security currently enjoys a large surplus. This money could be used, invested, in order to increase the life of the program tremendously. But it isn't, because our gov't steals this excess money in order to balance our current budgets (which they can't even do with the stolen monies). Therefore, those who attack the Social Security program as being financially unstable need to first address the fact that it isn't being allowed to operate as planned. It would be like claiming a Bank isn't profitable, while ignoring the theives who are stealing money every day from the bank.

Second, it is always some point in the future where the program is said to go 'bankrupt.' This is erroneous, however, because the term 'bankrupt is mis-used. During the last election cycle, we saw claims that the program would be bankrupt in what, 2047? 2043? Some date 40 years from now, for sure. Turns out that this is the date that, if we keep stealing money from the program, SS will only be able to cover 75% of its expenses with the monies it takes in from paychecks. This is misleading, because a gov't program that only covers 75% of its bills isn't bankrupt. Last year, our gov't ran over 570 Billion dollars of debt up. We didn't pay 30% of our bills as a nation. And, are we bankrupt? Nope. Why is it that some government programs are encouraged by Republicans to run in the red continually, while others are called 'bankrupt' if they run less in the red then our current government does? Because they help the poor, of course.

Third, no government program is designed to provide a perfect solution to our problems, in perpetuity. SS isn't perfect. It won't work forever. But if we stop stealing money from the Trust Fund, it will work for another hundred years or so, easily. There is some evidence that the rate of population growth in the US is tailing off somewhat, and that will help as well. To criticize SS for the fact that it will be unable to pay its bills in some nebulous point in the future is ridiculous. NONE of our gov't policies will work in the long run. ALL of them will have to be adjusted from time to time to reflect our new situation as a society. SS is no different, yet you and others persist in treating it differently because it helps the elderly poor, who you apparently believe are not deserving of help from fellow members of society.

A Ponzi scheme will not make money for anyone, except a few people at the top. SS has ensured the survival of literally millions of people who are at the bottom of the program. Comparing SS to a ponzi scheme merely reveals that you are confused about the definition of one of the two terms under comparison, or that you need to do more research than merely reading the list of talking points.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wrong again; I did present a fact, namely, that Social Security has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades. That isn't an assertion or an opinion, it is a fact. Such a universally recognized fact that noone even argues that it is true.

In the sense that social security has functioned as designed that I can agree with.  But that doesn't make it not a pyramid scheme.

It is a pay as you go system. Period. That is a fact. It robs Peter to pay Paul. It is a bad system in the sense that it drains money out of the economy that could have been much better used by the people themselves.

Make social security voluntary and then we can talk about it working "successfully".

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue of taxes have two elements. The first requirement is that the tax revenues must be equal to the spending -Balanced Budget.

The second issue is what mix of taxes is acceptable to achieve the first requirement.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a bad system in the sense that it drains money out of the economy that could have been much better used by the people themselves.


Emphasis on the word 'could.' Not 'will' but 'could.' That's the whole point of SS; it's going to be there for you no matter how badly someone screw their life up. The reason it is important, is because those people whose lives are screwed up for one reason or another (poor planning, illness, loss of life of major provider for home, stock market crashes, etc) don't simply vanish once they realize they are broke. They go right on living, needing food and shelter. The money for that food and shelter has to come from somewhere, or there will be:

1, a lot of old folks starving and freezing to death, and

2, a lot of young folks who are directly supporting old folks to keep them from freezing or starving to death.

One of the major matricies that is quoted by those on the Right is that the rate of home ownership in America is tremendous compared to other countries. This is in large part because of Social Security, as these same home-buyers are not forced to take their retired parents into account when figuring out their finances. You remove Social Security, and there are a lot more consequences than just 'adding money to the economy.' You also add a lot of burden to a lot of people who currently don't have that burden.

A pyramid scheme invariably concentrates the greatest profits amongst those who are at the top of said scheme. Social Security doesn't work that way at all. There is no group of people who are going to profit far more from SS than those at the bottom. So, while you have problems with the program (and there are valid criticisms of SS, for sure) calling it a pyramid or 'ponzi' scheme is erroneous at best.

Cheers
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only tax rich people? As far as a Democrat plan, no problem.

Here's the Democrat's logic:

Bush only gave tax cuts to the rich (the Democrats have told us so repeatedly, so it must be true)

Let the tax cuts sunset and the rich get a tax increase and pay more taxes.




Now for the dirty little secret .. which is not really a secret.

Everyone got a tax cut (at least those earning an income of any amount) so everyone who got one of those tax cuts is rich by Democratic logic.

In actuality, as a result of those tax cuts, the rich paid even more taxes (tax revenues collected are up).




Logic would suggest that if the rate is increased (sunsetting the tax cuts), tax revenues collected will drop to lower levels.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
“It is a bad system in the sense that it drains money out of the economy that could have been much better used by the people themselves”

This is an idea that is not predicated on any solid logic. If you look at where the money goes in the Federal Budget you see defense and homeland security. People could not make the "better Use" of the money to protect the country. Medical and funds for retirement are also areas that individuals have shown they do not provide proper spending to insure. Issues such as, law enforcement, roads, commerce and the many services that are ESSENTIAL for our society to operate would not be provided by individual spending decisions. There are many items that government does not need to be spending on like the bridge in Alaska. However the vast majority of things provided by the fed would not be provided by each individual deciding how and where to spend their money as this statement indicates.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now for the dirty little secret .. which is not really a secret.

Everyone got a tax cut (at least those earning an income of any amount) so everyone who got one of those tax cuts is rich by Democratic logic.

In actuality, as a result of those tax cuts, the rich paid even more taxes (tax revenues collected are up).


You are falling into the trap of non-corrolary statistics.

Everyone got a tax cut who pays taxes, true. I haven't seen where Dems argued that only the very rich got any sort of tax cut at all. But the vast majority of people saw their taxes cut by several hundred dollars, whereas the rich's taxes were cut by dozens of thousands of dollars. The overwhelming majority of the monies that were cut from tax revenues, were returned to the richest Americans. Who, coincidentally, needed it the least, and certainly didn't need it any more than our gov't and nation need it.

You state that the rich paid more taxes. But it wasn't because of the tax cuts; the rich pay more taxes because the percentage of our nations monies owned by the rich has risen significantly. This doesn't corrolate with the tax cuts, but with the cuts on Dividend taxes, which most certainly do not benefit all Americans equally.

Tax revenues collected are up, but in large part this is because Corporate profits are way up over the last 6 years. Once again this is not a category of the economy which has a direct benefit to the average person inside the economy. There is no direct correlation between tax cuts and rises in federal revenue. It is somewhat absurd to assume that there would be, as this has never historically been shown to be true.

Therefore, your 'logic' doesn't really hold out. The CBO has estimated that over the next decade, if not allowed to sunset, the Bush tax cuts will add at least an additional Trillion dollars to our national debt. The amount of growth it would take to offset that is tremendous, and is unsupportable by any theory of economics - or logic, for that matter.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Democrats are not called the "tax and spend" party for nothing.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The GOP have proven they are the party of CHARGE and SPEND. The GOP has out spent the Democrats and then added it to the National debt so every year we can pay more and more interest because of the increased debt the GOP Policies have created!


National Debt and Interest paid on the Debt 1980- 2006


Fiscal Year Amount Interest Paid in Billions


09/30/2006 $8,549,647,928,127.47 $ 405.9
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 352.4
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 321.6
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 318.1
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 332.5
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 358.5
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 Bus43 became president 362.0
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 353.5
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 363.8
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 355.8
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 344.0
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 332.4
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 296.3
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 292.5
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 Clinton became president 292.4
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 286.0
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 264.6
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 240.9
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 Bush 41 became president 214.1
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 195.0
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 190.0
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88 180.0
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 155.0
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 130.0
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 115.0
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 95.0
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 Reagan became president 80.0


Since September 30, 2005 the national debt has increased at a rate of $1.63 BILLION Dollars PER DAY!

Increase in the Annual interest paid by the United States

Reagan Up 134 Billion
Bush 41 Up 78 Billion
Clinton Up 70 Billion
Bush 43 Up 138 Billion

We took the interest paid EACH and EVERY year by American taxpayers from $80 Billion in 1980 to $500 Billion by 2010. That will be an increase of more then 6 times in 30 years!

Source- Bureau of Public Debt, Dept. of the U.S. Treasury
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice post Col. Gene.

Note that the average debt issued per year between 9/30/2001 and 9/30/2006 is....548,436,903,185.48.

That's 548 Billion dollars. Per year.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone should be taxed.

Well, except for me of course.