More politics - another interesting editorial

[grrrr]

Tax Increases: Thank the GOP

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

If they can't get tax breaks for America's wealthiest families, Republicans in Congress are prepared to raise taxes on millions of America's middle-class families.

By shackling a tax cut on multimillion-dollar estates to renewing a host of middle-class tax breaks, Republican leadership is making it explicitly clear just whom they count among their more important constituents.

Among the real-people tax relief provisions that expired more than nine months ago are federal tax deductions for student tuition, allowing educators to write off some of the money they spend out of their own pockets on classroom supplies and deductions for state and local sales taxes. The loss of the sales tax deduction alone would cost Washington taxpayers $500 million in their 2006 returns.

Earlier, Republicans tied the sales tax deduction to both the estate tax cut and a phony minimum wage increase that would have been devastating for anyone depending on income from tips.

Senate Democrats repeatedly have tried to pass the middle-class tax breaks as separate bills but the Republican leadership refused.

Lawmakers slide into recess the end of this week so they can hit the campaign trail for the November elections. If the middle-class tax relief provisions aren't reinstated by then, get ready to pay more federal taxes than you did last year.

If middle-class voters will be forced to pay more on April 15, maybe they should make Republicans pay the price on Nov. 7.

[Buster Highmen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_4Cs149awg

[MeatPuppet]

Some people might argue that they are bringing a little balance to a system that has been badly out of balance for far too long.


As of 2003:

"The top 10%...with 37.6% of all income, paid 50.2% of all federal taxes...

The middle 20%...with 14.2% of total income, paid 9.9% of all federal taxes...

The bottom 20%...with 4.2% of total income, receive 5.9% from federal income taxes (they get EITC which is a negative tax) and paid 1% of all federal taxes..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence


Class warfare is a long established tool of the Dems who sqeal like stuck pigs whenever the republicans try to balance out the tax burden a little. The political motivation of the republicans is irrelevant to me. Their actions, bringing more balance and fairness to the tax system, is what is important. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The tax system should be fair for all tax payers, regardless of what bracket they occupy.

The term "Tyranny of the Majority" comes to mind every time I hear people crying about tax breaks for the rich. Regardless of a person's income level, they are still an American citizen and deserve to be treated fairly by the government.

[Buster Highmen]

Taxes are not a burden on the rich. They can be a burden on the poor and middle class. I think this 'fairness' issue is not al that clear.

[PNWbrit]

Citizenship is also not a qualifyng factor.

[lemon boy]

As of 2003:

"The top 10%...with 37.6% of all income, paid 50.2% of all federal taxes...

The middle 20%...with 14.2% of total income, paid 9.9% of all federal taxes...

The bottom 20%...with 4.2% of total income, receive 5.9% from federal income taxes (they get EITC which is a negative tax) and paid 1% of all federal taxes..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

Lies
Damn Lies
& Statistics.

all in one post, kudos sir, kudos.

[MeatPuppet]

Taxes are not a burden on the rich. They can be a burden on the poor and middle class. I think this 'fairness' issue is not al that clear.

I agree, but that use of "burden" is different from my usage.

There is no way to decide what is and is not a financial burden on an individual, because that is dependant on lifestyle and expectations. So it changes from person to person. That is not something the government should have their hands in.

I'm a big fan of the flat tax, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I have a hard time believing that politicians are going to willing give up the amount of power they wield with the tax system as it is.

[grrrr]

Some people might argue that they are bringing a little balance to a system that has been badly out of balance for far too long.

And some people might be full of shit. Regardless of any other issue at stake, one provision that returned some fairness to the tax system allowed a tax deduction for state sales tax. Currently there is a tax deduction for state income tax, but if you live in a state that is funded by sales tax, too bad. That deduction, which has now expired, saved me hundreds of dollars last year.

I'm all for a simplified tax code, but not for a fuck-me-in-the-ass tax code. I paid over 20k in federal income tax last year, and this year I'll bite it even worse.

[Buster Highmen]

I agree, but that use of "burden" is different from my usage.

There is no way to decide what is and is not a financial burden on an individual, because that is dependant on lifestyle and expectations. So it changes from person to person. That is not something the government should have their hands in.

I disagree. The extent of excess on the part of the wealthy is obscene. I'm all for pornography, so I guess I have a different notion of obscene. Free trade is a lie that leads to back oligarchy from which America was supposed to be an escape.

I'm a big fan of the flat tax, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I have a hard time believing that politicians are going to willing give up the amount of power they wield with the tax system as it is.

I'm a big fan of inheritance tax. Hopefully, the political philosophy of America still includes a rejection of patriarchy.

[PNWbrit]

Flat taxes and no estate tax.

A simplistic argument that's pushed by the rich and supported by the simple poor.

[Buster Highmen]

So what is "being treated fairly by the government"? If I make more, I expect to pay more. I teach my children to be self sufficient, independent, think for themselves and be willing to do more and help those in need.

That is a position of strength.

When you have comfort and security, whining about having more stuff is just weak bullshit.

Fairness when applied to the less fortunate is admirable. When applied to the self is embarassing.

[shamrockpow]

From a conservative economist and former Bush CEA Chair:

Framing and Progressivity
In today's CEA op-ed, the sentence that will likely generate a blogosphere debate with the most heat and least light is this one: "The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive."

The basic problem is that there is no single way to gauge changes in progressivity. As a result, people can take the same set of numbers, look at them from different angles, and reach very different conclusions.

Consider a simple example (which I used in a fall ec 10 lecture). There are two people. A rich guy earns $200,000. A poor guy earns $20,000. At first, the rich guy pays $50,000 in taxes, and the poor guy pays $1,000. Then a new President takes office and cuts the rich guy's taxes to $48,000 and the poor guy's taxes to $800.

Who is getting the better deal?

* You could say the rich guy gets the better deal: The rich guy gets an extra $2000 in take-home pay, while the poor guy gets only $200. After the tax cut, the difference in take-home pay between the two guys is larger.
* You could say the deal is evenly balanced: Everyone gets to keep an extra 1 percent of his income.
* You could say the poor guy gets the better deal: The poor guy gets a 20 percent tax cut, while the rich guy gets only a 4 percent tax cut. After the tax cut, the rich guy pays a larger share of the total tax burden.

It is impossible to say on purely economic grounds which of these perspectives is better. All of these statements are mathematically correct, even if they leave the reader with very different impressions. If you are a politician or a journalist trying to argue that this tax cut is good for the rich, good for the poor, or somewhere in between, you can do it!

The lesson: Be careful when you read debate about the progressivity of the recent tax changes. The conclusions that a commentator reaches depends on how the issue is framed.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...ressivity.html

PS: let's not forget that every additional dollar that Bush uses to finance the defecit will be paid back by American taxpayers, either through higher taxes later or inflation!

[P_McPoser]

Regardless of any other issue at stake, one provision that returned some fairness to the tax system allowed a tax deduction for state sales tax. Currently there is a tax deduction for state income tax, but if you live in a state that is funded by sales tax, too bad. That deduction, which has now expired, saved me hundreds of dollars last year.

Ditto, this saved me over 700 dollars last year....

[Jer]

Metally, skiing can be very theraputic. I've found that skiing can help clear your mind of a lot of bullshit. Like politics, for example. Skiing sure is neato.

[Ski Monkey]

Metally, skiing can be very theraputic. I've found that skiing can help clear your mind of a lot of bullshit. Like politics, for example. Skiing sure is neato.

Yes, because sticking your head in the snow will solve this country's problems. Lalalalala.....I'm not listening.....

[grrrr]

Oh goody. Just when you thought the board was nice and comfy, along comes another fucking martha stewart jong who thinks he knows what should or shouldn't be discussed on the board and wants to redecorate it his way. Wow. Your probably the first person ever to do that. Now fuck off and go home, gaper.

[iceman]

Oh goody. Just when you thought the board was nice and comfy, along comes another fucking martha stewart jong who thinks he knows what should or shouldn't be discussed on the board and wants to redecorate it his way. Wow. Your probably the first person ever to do that. Now fuck off and go home, gaper.

heh, I don't know if I've ever seen grrr pissed off before. You want to talk skiing, fucking talk skiing. See if anybody will talk to you. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If grrr wants to talk about somethng he read in the paper, same deal.

Now fuck off you twit.

As to the topic, greedy people suck. Oddly, it seems the greediest are right-wing republican conservative "christians". How they manage to justify their greed while claiming to believe the teachings of christ as written in the bible is way fucking beyond me.

[nutcase]

The rich generally benefit more from the actions of the federal government. Therefore they should pay a larger percentage. The rich generally get richer through the actions of the government.

Government protects wealth, provides security for wealth, provides security for transport of wealth, provides repair and maintenance of infrastructure which creates wealth.

Think of the business owner who ships his/her goods across the country with dozens or even hundreds of truck and rail shipments per day. That business owner is using infrastructure and security provided by the federal government to increase his/her wealth. A poor person may drive a couple miles on a road to the store. Hardly a similar usage of infrastructure.

[AdironRider]

Since when is the fact that a business owner uses the roads more a justification for higher taxes? Roads and highways are a public good killer.

I side on the notion of a flat tax. When your making a mil a year and losing 50% in taxes its not that easy to swallow. Keep in mind most of these people work their fucking ass off to make that kind of money. Outside of lotery winners and trust fund babies, I dont know of many people who dont work hard for their money, whether it be through years of schooling, hard work, or entrepreneurship. Let them keep a little bit of it.

[nutcase]

Since when is the fact that a business owner uses the roads more a justification for higher taxes? Roads and highways are a public good killer.

.

Who pays for the public good?

[shmoesmith]

I have come to post in this important thread. I wish I could comment, but I can't.

That is all

[Jer]

Oh goody. Just when you thought the board was nice and comfy, along comes another fucking martha stewart jong who thinks he knows what should or shouldn't be discussed on the board and wants to redecorate it his way. Wow. Your probably the first person ever to do that. Now fuck off and go home, gaper.

Wow. Doesn't take much to get you going, huh? Maybe you should try this skiing thing.

[CRACKER]

Wow. Doesn't take much to get you going, huh? Maybe you should try this skiing thing.

Can you make it snow you fucking cockring.

[Jer]

Yes I can. But not where you are.

[MeatPuppet]

So what is "being treated fairly by the government"?

From an economic point of view; one set of tax laws that applies to everyone. You should not be penalized or recieve favor because of your economic status.

If I make more, I expect to pay more.

You should pay more, but you shouldn't pay a higher percentage of your income. That is a form of social engineering and promotes economic stagnation. America is not an experiment in social engineering. Our South American bretheren are carrying that banner and you see how well they are doing. America is an exercise in self government, with the goal being liberty for all.

I teach my children to be self sufficient, independent, think for themselves and be willing to do more and help those in need.

That is a position of strength.

Absolutely, that is nothing but a good thing.

When you have comfort and security, whining about having more stuff is just weak bullshit.

Who is to decide what the definition of comfort and security should be? That definition varies from person to person. In comparison to 90% of the rest of the world, you and I live obscene lifestyles. Any attempt to define this comes into conflict with the concept of personal liberty. It is not up to you and I to decide how somebody else should live, nor what values they should hold. Just like it is not up to anybody else to determine how you and I should live or what valuse we should hold. Liberty demands that that be left to the individual to decide for himself.

Fairness when applied to the less fortunate is admirable. When applied to the self is embarassing.

It is the job of the government to provide equality of opportunity, from a regulatory point of view. This is how I define fairness. It is not the job of government to regulate a comparative equality among individuals(tax brackets, etc.) and it is certainly not the job of government to legislate an equality of outcome for individuals or society as a whole(i.e affirmative action, estate taxes, etc.). These last two infringe on individual liberty.

Unlike some other political/social topics that have surfaced here, I think it is possible to have a well thought out, principled position and still disagree with everything I have said. This is just how I see it.