Tax cuts happen, why all the fuss?

from JoeUser Forums
I originally wrote this here, Link as a reply all the excess drama over Bush and Cheney saving money as a result of their tax cuts. However, largely because of length, (and laziness), I decided to delete my reply and repost it here instead.

Apparently the far (and I do mean far) side of the left seems to think that this was implemented by Bush to save himself a (to him) insignificant amount of money, at the cost of devestating the poor and middle class. Well, I feel devestated, don't you?

Meh. Tax changes affect me little to none. I'm military reporting a gross income of 32 grand a year, and I end up paying 1700 in taxes. If it goes up, goes down, I make a couple of grand higher or lower, it affects me what, a couple of hundred dollars if anywhere near that? Not enough to pay one electric bill in a hot Texas summer.

I'm not poor, but I've got a lot of debt. For here, I'm lower middle class, and I don't see that lowering the taxes on the wealthy hurts me particularly unless it seriously hurts the economy, which I doubt, and then not much.

Good grief, I pay far more taxes in the form of sales tax, luxury tax (well, at least in gasoline, higher prices through tariffs, etc.), property tax, utilities taxes, social security, Medicare, et cetera than income tax could ever amount to. Something like three times as much. These taxes are ever made nearly as much fuss over, aren't for the most part progressive in any way, yet account for at least twenty percent of my income, before income tax ever comes into the picture.

Before income tax could represent serious amounts of money, my income would be far to high for those large amounts to really hurt me. (Which is of course the idea behind progressive taxes) If they want to lower some taxes, and it doesn't make a serious dent in the economy, I say lassez faire (which being this tired, I undoubtedly mispelled). Or to quote Jefferson out of context, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. It's not hurting me.
politics
19,213 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Lowering taxes is a terribly moronic idea right now, considering the national debt is currently $7.7 trillion. We should be cutting spending, not taxes.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lowering taxes is a terribly moronic idea right now, considering the national debt is currently $7.7 trillion. We should be cutting spending, not taxes.


Cutting excess spending I can see, but then the taxes affect me how again exactly? Barring the deficit causing a depression so large, that it deserves capital letters and it's own adjective at the beginning, they won't affect my life, or the lives of those around me at the bottom of the food chain much at all.

If one really wanted to play devil's advocate, you could even make the old trickle down economics argument, that the tax cuts at top will increase spending, investment in industry, etc., encouraging an improvement in the economy.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now I'm just a dumb college kid who doesn't have any money to speak of, but it's 2am, I'm poking around joeuser, and I feel talkative. So much of the money that the government takes in is flat-out wasted that if they cut out all the crap they could Pork Barrel spending. You know what that is. And there's that stadium that they're planning to build in New York City. It infuriates me that they would ever consider spending public money on that. And of course there's
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Tax cuts happen, why all the fuss?"


Because robin hood types don't feel like the world is in order unless someone is sticking it to the wealthy, and wealthy Liberals keep up the facade and get "creative" accountants...
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heh, maybe this makes me evil or a moocher or something, but...I love tax time. Tax time is happy time. Thanks to our breeding ways (and whatever else that I don't know about that contributes to our tax return) we generally get about $5K back. Yeeeeeaaaah, baby.

It's extra money that we don't plan on having, so like you've said, if it changed, I don't suppose it would have all that much of an impact (but I might have to wait for my elliptical trainer, which would be a bummer). We've yet to have to pay in, but I'm sure that's coming in the years ahead.

Should we get a trampoline?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
we generally get about $5K back. Yeeeeeaaaah, baby.


I don't have the kids you do, so we only get back part of what we put in, and really, I'd rather have had the excess money back when I earned it, rather than let the government hang on to it all year. Still, it's awfully nice around rebate time.

Or (and I'll give an insightful to the first person to spot the quote), "Liberatin', idn' it?"

Should we get a trampoline?


Oh yeah, a big bouncy one, with ummm.......a coke holder, and a massage chamber, and umm, padded rails even! Hard to move, being military, but the kids (even the ones ages 18 - 58) will love it.

unless someone is sticking it to the wealthy


They say that revolution is for equality and fraternity, I find that it's usually about role reversal between the economic classes.
I like Nietsche's version better, He said that the quickest way to fraternity and equality is exhaustion.

And of course there's


Sorry, the page that linked to isn't working right, something about the quakers?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Heh, maybe this makes me evil or a moocher or something, but...I love tax time. Tax time is happy time. Thanks to our breeding ways (and whatever else that I don't know about that contributes to our tax return) we generally get about $5K back. Yeeeeeaaaah, baby.

Thanks to GW Bush!  Welcome to the dark side!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is, taxes are far less a matter of revenue as they are a matter of social engineering. Class warfare warriors whine and moan that "the rich" aren't paying their fair share, "the poor" whine and moan that they aren't being given enough of other people's money, and "the rich" whine and moan that "the poor" are too lazy to earn money the old fashioned way.

All it really amounts too is a bunch of whining and moaning that someone else is the problem.

For me, I wish they would all just shut up and actually think about what they are saying before they accomplish looking more foolish than they already do.

Tax revenues were never meant to "even the playing field", they were meant to fund the government according to the Constitution of the U.S., the States, or the Local municipalities. Social Engineering through taxation is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the end, neither Peter or Paul are any better off for all the whining and moaning.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Tax revenues were never meant to "even the playing field"

Unfortunately, that is what the left has come to think of them as.  Just listen to them.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2K

Our problem is that we are robbing Peter to pay part of what we owe Paul and then borrowing the balance from Sam. Sone day Sam will want to be paid and he will also want the interest which we do not have.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Our problem is that we are robbing Peter to pay part of what we owe Paul and then borrowing the balance from Sam. Sone day Sam will want to be paid and he will also want the interest which we do not have.

Fine.  But look at it this way.  If you are living beyong your means, do you stomp into the bosses office and demand a raise? (You can, but that does not happen often), or do you cut expenses?  If you dont like the interest of the debt, reduce spending!  It has never been tried, and who knows, it might just work for a change.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
If cutting spending will not solve the problem you seek a higher paying job or get a second job. What you do not do is just keep adding the shortfall to the credit card. That is the policy we have been and are following. In addition, that is the policy we plan to follow in the future under Bush and the conservatives in Congress because they will not get a part-time job (tax increase).
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are spending more than you make, how could cutting spending NOT solve the problem? You're a broken record Col.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet

Very simple- If you look at your spending and find you CAN cut $100 per month out of your expenses and you were $600 out of balance, even after you cut the $100 you still have a $500 per month problem. We could cut spending- get out of Iraq, end pork. Would that save enough- HELL NO. I think we should do those two things as a start and then restore tax rates on the trop 5% to per 2000 rates. That would move us closer to a balanced budget. We should try and collect more of the taxes that people and corporations are not paying. Than look at the remaining inbalance, if any, and find other cuts or revenue to finish the job!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again, Col Gene, raising taxes won't come close to eliminating the deficit. This has been explained to you over and over. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of statistical fact.  Raising taxes alone won't come close to eliminating the deficit.  Moreover, you don't even propose a fair tax increase, just a partial one on those damn rich people (i.e. people other than you) which would be a drop in the bucket.

The coruse congress is taking already (which makes this all pointless) is to try to decrease the rate of spending growth so that natural growth in tax receipts due to economic growth.  This in turn will lower the deficit and hopefully eventually eliminate it. 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very simple- If you look at your spending and find you CAN cut $100 per month out of your expenses and you were $600 out of balance, even after you cut the $100 you still have a $500 per month problem.


No, if you do not have the $600, you do with less, period. You cut your spending $600. DOnt tell me you cannot. That is like saying you cant accept personal responsibility. If you have to, you do it. Period.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr Guy

Not if the spending after you cut is ESSENTIAL. You may not be able to cut things like insurance, rent, unilities, gasoline, food, medical. There is no $675 Billion of optional expenses per year in the federal budget. The problem with the argument that growth in the economy will balance the budget does not consider that most elements in the budget will increase EVERY year- inflation and COLA adjustments as well as higher interest on the growing debt. second, the tax cuts have not been fully phased in and the loss in revenue will continue to grow until 2010. If the economic growth slows due to highet interest and higher oil prices, the problem becomes worse. The reason we should first restore the tax cuts for the top 5% is that will have the least impact on spending and GDP growth! Increasing taxes on the middle income workers will cut spending and slow economic growth more then tax increases to the top 5%.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our problem is that we are robbing Peter to pay part of what we owe Paul and then borrowing the balance from Sam. Sone day Sam will want to be paid and he will also want the interest which we do not have.


Agreed, but when you pay your bills, if you don't have enough, do you threaten Paul with prison if he doesn't give you more money?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is not a threat. It is meeting the obligations of this country to PAY for what it is spending. After spending cuts that are acceptable to the majority ( not just the conservatives) have been made, we must provide the revenue to balance the budget even if it means increasing taxes.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is not a threat.


No, a tax IS an implied threat. Pay up, or go to jail, lose your home.. whatever.

Yes, the government does have an obligation to cover it's expenses, but as I pointed out in my "Question for Class Warfare Warriors" Link article, there is nothing Constitutional about a graduated tax system.

We'll agree that it's not "just conservatives" that should have a say in what is acceptable spending. It is the Constitution.

Where we disagree is here:

even if it means increasing taxes.


Apparently to you, there should be tax increases (as a percentage of income) on only those you call "the rich", but not on yourself (or those for whom you deem worthy of being exempted).
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax cuts on the wealthy will have less adverse impact on spending (demand) and GDP growth then on the middle class. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the graduated income tax. It has to do with what is best for the majority in this country. The vast majority of the benefit went to the wealthy and since there were no resources to pay for the tax cut it needs to be reversed the way the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treas said in 2001. they told Bush the tax cuts should only continue so long as there was a "SURPLUS" from which to pay for them. They both told Bush NOT to return to annual budget deficits!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax cuts on the wealthy will have less adverse impact on spending (demand) and GDP growth then on the middle class.


But my friend, to most the nation, YOU are among the wealthy, yet YOU do not think YOU should be taxed to the hilt... so why should those you YOU think are wealthy?

It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the graduated income tax.


How do you get off saying it has nothing to do with the graduated income tax? You are supporting higher percentages for those who make more than you. How is that not the graduated income tax?

Nothing to do with the Constitution? Everything the fed does should be based on the Constitution.

The vast majority of the benefit went to the wealthy and since there were no resources to pay for the tax cut it needs to be reversed the way the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treas said in 2001.


What is has "nothing" to do with is what is best for "the vast majority". The Constitution says that taxes must be uniform. What you are proposing is inherently Unconstitutional.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Federal income tax has NEVER been ruled unconstitutional. As for ParaTed2K

I may be near the top of the middle income but not in the same class as the people that Bush took care of with his tax cuts. No matter what you say, we have a $675 Billion dollar deficit in 2005. NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Federal income tax has NEVER been ruled unconstitutional.


True, but as I show, it IS unconstitutional. Just because the people who benefit most from it have no interest in the Constitution that doesn't make it ok.

I may be near the top of the middle income but not in the same class as the people that Bush took care of with his tax cuts.


Your bigotry aside, Prs. Bush did not "take care" of anyone with the tax cuts, he merely reduced the cost of staying out of prison for not paying taxes. Your statement here shows that, while you allow yourself to consider anyone who makes more than you "the rich", you don't recognize that for anyone but your pathetic self.

No matter what you say, we have a $675 Billion dollar deficit in 2005. NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!


Yes, we have a $650 Billion Dollar Deficit, but our elected officials also have the responsibility to stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution when considering how to deal with it.

NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!


No, the amount of money brought in may need to be increased, but your class warfare ideas of "tax the rich as long as you don't consider me the rich" stupidity doesn't increase revenue either. All it does is point your stinking crooked finger at those with whom you carry a prejudice mistrust. You might as well be Jesse Jackson saying that the only way to help Black people in America is through reperations.

Bigotry by any other name stinks just as bad.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
You get the added tax revenue from the segment that will do the least harm. That is from those who can afford to pay a little more - the top 5%. thay are the people that got the BIG benefit over the past 4 years!