RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Democrats waht to INCREASE Tax Cut Bill!!!!!!!!!!!(23 posts)

Democrats waht to INCREASE Tax Cut Bill!!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 6:59 AM
"The bill Bush signed May 28 increases the credit to $1,000 per child, from $600. The increase takes effect next year, but Congress instructed the Treasury Department to mail $400-per-child checks to qualifying families this summer as an advance."

"Unlike the existing credit, the checks won't go to families who make less than enough to owe income taxes — a group earning up to$27,000."

The existing bill reduces taxes retroactively to those who "pay" income taxes. However if any of you happened to see dear Ol' Charlie Rangel on the boob tube last evening, he was cryin' for the CHILDREN. I guess these are the 12 million children Cory was chastising me for not knowing about. You see these families were not entitled to a tax cut because they don't pay taxes. They do get EITC which esseitially is a form of welfare - which is fine. These families may have hardships and can use the subsidy.

Now however the Dumocrats, even after their ranting about the Federal Budget Dificit, want to increase the Tax Cut Bill by providing "refunds"? to those families earning under the stipulated amount for not having to pay taxes. This is just another form of welfare. It is also quite hypocritical I might say. So much for fiscal responsibility on the part of the Dumos! :O)
terminologyDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 7:12 AM
You can't have a tax "credit" unless you would owe taxes. You are correct -- at least call it what it is -- welfare. Sure, offer the credit to everyone, but only as a credit against taxes owed.

Doug
Buying off the voters??Jon Billheimer
Jun 4, 2003 8:40 AM
Are both the Repubs and Demos trying to get a running start on buying votes in 2004? This is what I call "Nero politics", fiddling while Rome's burning, a tactic which Jean Chretien's liberals have raised to a high art!

BTW, who ultimately foots the bill after the election's been won or lost? You guys and your kids!
nice syntaxMJ
Jun 4, 2003 8:46 AM
it appears the middle class are going to be footing the tax bill - I'll assume that means you and most of the other US posters here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10323-2003Jun3.html?nav=hptop_tb

washingtonpost.com
Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise
Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline

By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A01

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very wealthiest Americans -- those earning $337,000 or more per year -- will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes in the nation's tax laws. And, as administration officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a disproportionately lighter tax burden.

The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes than they did before the changes.

The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the Bush administration's tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush's tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.

Liberal groups have argued that the Bush administration is penalizing the poor while rewarding the rich. In part to answer those critics, Republicans have targeted the poor with expanded tax refund checks for families with children, a new 10 percent tax bracket and a larger earned-income credit for married couples who are poor.

The result may be a surprise to both sides: By the end of the decade, the middle class will be picking up a greater share of the government's tab.

"It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very top," said R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush's most recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. By slashing taxes on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with income, as they would with a perfectly "progressive" system. "But," Hubbard added, "we've very much retained progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into the bottom rates."

The two studies focused on separate issues. Citizens for Tax Justice examined the percentage changes in total federal taxes that would be paid by different income groups through 2010. The Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, looked at the share of federal taxes that would remain for the various groups once those changes are fully phased in. But the studies reached similar conclusions.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that for the lowest fifth of taxpayers -- those earning below $16,000 -- federal taxes would fall 10 percent between now and 2010, while federal taxes for those in the second quintile -- earning between $16,000 to $28,000 -- would fall 12 percent. At the other end of the scale, the decline for the top 1 percent of taxpayers -- those making $337,000 and up -- would be 15 percent.

In contrast, for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $337,000, the decline would be 7 percent, less than half the cut reaped by the very wealthy.

Citizens for Tax Justice assumed that those provisions in the tax laws scheduled to expire before 2011 would expire as scheduled, although administration officials have said they are determined to make those changes permanent.

The Tax Policy Center assumed
That's one way to spin it...TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:12 AM
The other is that despite the tax cut, the wealthy are still paying a disproportionate amount of the total tax base. Even if the system were perfectly flat, the wealthy would pay more of the total tax burden than the middle class.

I weep to think of the family of four, making $60,000 with a $45 annual tax bill...
That's one way to spin it...MJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:17 AM
I think they make that point in the article - discussing same in other thread with Moneyman - it may just come down to whether you believe the wealthy should pay a disproportionate amount...

if you're the family of four you'd think it pretty sweet

is it incorrect to conclude that people in the middle between $38k and $337k are going to pay more with this tax proposal?
I believe that's incorrect,TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:22 AM
As understand the tax proposal, people paying between $38K and $337K will be paying less tax than they previously did. As a percentage of total tax receipts, they will be paying more, because the people above them got a proportionately larger cut. However, contrary to some spin, the cut is a cut across the board - nobody's taxes are going up. It just so happens that the rich, who, by the way, were disproportionally effected by the Clinton tax increase, are disproportionally benefiting from the decrease. Another interesting point is that the tax cut at the highest bracket still has them paying a higher % rate than the pre-Clinton rate.
okMJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:27 AM
I follow the logic there - I disagree - but I understand

what about the newly acquired US deficit? why cut taxes when there's a deficit?
Keynesian economics?TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:29 AM
Neoclassical economic theory holds that governments should engage in deficit spending at low points in the economic cycle. I'm not saying it's always right, but there is solid theory behind it.
so Bush is really an FDR democrat?MJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:35 AM
I've got the Keynes point - but I thought Keynesian economics is prefaced on the government actively circulating money back in to the economy rather than just going in to debt - is that right?

is it right, in your opinion, to be incurring a deficit right now
I wouldn't go that far...TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:42 AM
The situation is that the government is putting more money into the economy via tax cuts, rather than by excessive spending (FDR's method). It doesn't really matter how the money gets there, and I would argue that going through private channels would have a higher money velocity effect (each dollar gets used more times).

A deficit probably isn't something that I would try to get, given the circumstances; but if my economic policies (i.e. cutting taxes) resulted in a deficit, I wouldn't be very concerned. I would be concerned if the economy were at 1999 levels, and we were running a deficit (ala the mid/late 1980s). But given the state of the economy, I think a deficit isn't really going to have much effect in the mid-run, and will have a positive effect in the short run.
BTWMJ
Jun 4, 2003 8:51 AM
it looks like GWB is making some progress in Israel - his approach notwithstanding
If you can trust the Israelis and Hamas...not!! (nm)Jon Billheimer
Jun 4, 2003 8:56 AM
agreed it's toughMJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:03 AM
but talking is better than shooting - or surrounding the Palestinian executive with Israeli tanks...

there's criticism of Bush's approach here which says he's naive and just doesn't understand what he's getting in to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,969955,00.html

but the article acknowledges Clinton's approach was perhaps too detailed and that a 'naive' approach - even if intentional may have some benefit
agreed it's toughJon Billheimer
Jun 4, 2003 9:14 AM
I really don't think it matters whether it's Carter, Clinton, or Bush. The problem is that extreme elements on both sides, e.g. Hamas and Islamic Jihad vs. extreme right wing Israeli parties, do not want peace and will do whatever is necessary to jettison any peace process. It has happened umpteen times before and will most likely continue. Arafat has built his entire career on sabotaging peace. Sharon is a natural political counterbalance to the terrorists. Possibly the only thing that Bush could do would be to suspend a doomsday bomb above Israel and Palestine which would automatically obliterate the entire area if there was a violation of an agreement. Guess how long Palestine and Israel would continue to exist? 5 minutes tops!!!! My VERY CYNICAL AND PESSIMISTIC 2 cents.
I wonder what we're not hearing...TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:14 AM
I wonder what kind of pressure Bush is putting on Israel to get them to the table. Sharon, a man not known for caving to much, appears to have agreed to a lot more than he was initially prepared to. I'd really like to know what 'inspired' his change of heart. I can be relatively certain that it wasn't a passionate oration from GWB.
I wonder what we're not hearing...MJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:20 AM
that Guardian article quotes Bush as speaking rather, er, directly to Sharon - whatever you say about Bush - people seem to respond well to him and his approach in face to face discussions
Finally seeing the benefits of an MBA President?TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:32 AM
It's interesting to read what the Guardian believes Mr. Bush's approach is. From what they say, it is a very CEO-type response: "I don't care how you get it done, but these are the required results, and if you don't achieve them, bad, bad things will happen."

It's a relatively common management style, and can work well, depending on the people around the table. Or it can be a disaster - time will tell.
I'd feel alot betterMJ
Jun 4, 2003 9:40 AM
about an MBA President if he'd ever been associated with a viable company where his leadership skills were effectively brought to bear on a situation - but unfortunately Bush was associated with a string of business failures

I know the style - but why should we assume Bush isn't just going through the motions and play acting like he saw in that film with Michael Douglas, Wall Street...

the real leverage is US financial assistance - I think the thing we're not hearing is that Bush is taking the terror threat seriously enough to engage and link resolution of Israel Palestine to US terrorism threats to ME peace to US financial aid to Israel
I agree,TJeanloz
Jun 4, 2003 9:43 AM
I think the leverage is entirely financial, and Bush has probably put a proverbial gun to Sharon's head (as his father did).
maybe, or just attitudeDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 9:43 AM
I think that GWB's style is to do what he thinks is right, without sticking his finger in the wind, being concerned about who gets the credit, or caring what people think of him. He bases his decisions on principle and results, not polls, party, or popularity.

Doug
Thanks Doug. I have been saying that ...Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 12:03 PM
about GW for quite a while. The naysayers (notice I didn't say panty wastes :O) have been trying to say he was a political animal and doing things to get elected. Well I agree with them, but not for the reason they think. He is doing what is expected of him. He is doing his job as he believes it to be defined, so he can get re-elected based on performance. I almost think he has a printed laundry list of items to achieve as president. If you ask me it is a practical approach. Kind of like the "regular guy" approach. I think we are too used to our politicians trying to act as if they hold all the answers. Trying to look "Presidential" without any real substance behind the facade. I think Bush really doesn't give a damn about "appearances". Hey he let that journalist, who was a confessed Democrat, travel with him during his campaign trail. He knew she would see that he had spots and blemishes, just like the rest of us, yet he still allowed it. That took guts. It also proved he feels he has nothing to hide.
You covered a lot of ground there.jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:25 PM
As far as letting a Dem reporter travel with him - he's done more to reach out to the other side than any other president (much less politician) ever has in my 32 yrs of being a voter.
And about being a "regular guy", - watching him today in Jordan talking about his hopes for peace and what needs to be done, he was wearing his heart on his sleave. There was no doubt in anyones (of intelligence) mind that he was sincere! Even though I think lasting peace won't come from this, I know there's no other world leader that could have been up there today doing what he was doing.