Tax Rebates Are Unfair to the Poor?

[lucwarm]

I'm not against income taxes, or even progressive income taxes.

But I can't stand it when people criticize tax reductions and/or rebates as "unfair to the poor," on the theory that such reductions only benefit the rich.

Why? Think about it - the reason people with lower incomes don't benefit from tax reductions is that they don't pay much tax in the first place. I agree that poor people shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes, and I'm not troubled at all that they are subsidized by the wealthy. But, if taxes are cut (for whatever reason) how in the world is that unfair to people who aren't paying as much in taxes?

"It's working families who are counting on a rebate the most who are the most likely to get nothing this year," said Representative Charles B. Rangel of Manhattan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Look, if you think that taxes should be raised on the wealthy, and more money spent on the poor, just say so, and maybe I'll agree with you (depending on how the money is to be spent).

But these arguments that tax cuts are unfair to the poor since they disproportionately help the rich annoy me.

[BoBettie]

It's called a "rebate" for a reason. A rebate is:
from Dictionary.com
"a refund of some fraction of the amount paid"

So, no pay, no rebate. I don't see what the issue is. I'm sick of hearing the "No fair!" cry, too.

Zette

[andros]

Well . . .

x dollars is a much greater percentage of Joe Bluecollar's income than Joe Millionaire's.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Zette is right on. This isn't "tax relief for the poor" it's a rebate. If you paid only a little bit in, no reason why you should get more than a little bit back.

I understand that the benefit of said tax rebate may be bigger to those with the lowest income--it might represent a doubling of their biweekly income, for example. But that's just math. It's not what I understand the concept "rebate" to mean.

Here's why we're crying in the House of Cranky: we've had very uneven income over the past few years. Big bucks in the form of a lump-sum buyout a few years back and since then we've lived on savings. That means we paid huge, ugly, more-than-I'll-ever-earn-in-a-year taxes once, whereas now our income is piddling and so are our taxes.

If I had to have that environment-wrecking tax-slashing buffoon in my White House, why oh why couldn't it have been in our flush year?!?

[UncleBeer]

If I had to have that environment-wrecking tax-slashing buffoon in my White House, why oh why couldn't it have been in our flush year?!?
'Cuz you voted fer Clinton? That might have something to do with it. Sheesh, quitcher whinin' about getting what ya asked for.

[december]

If we give rebates to people who didn't pay tax, why include only Americans? There's enough rebate money available to give each person in the world about $5 (excluding postage.)

[lucwarm]

Another bone to pick:

I frequently hear conservatives complaining about a so-called "entitlement mentality."

Honestly, I am skeptical of these complaints -- let's face it, we all feel (at some level) that we're entitled to certain goodies.

But when I see stuff like this, it makes me wonder:


"It's working families who are counting on a rebate the most who are the most likely to get nothing this year," said Representative Charles B. Rangel of Manhattan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. (emphasis mine)

Umm, excuse me, but exactly why were you counting on a rebate?

I think it's proper and wonderful that people with low incomes should pay very little in taxes, and still enjoy our nation's roads, parks, etc. And if the government were to decide to send everyone a few (unexpected) bucks, even those who pay little in taxes, I wouldn't have a conniption over it.

But why anyone should count on such a windfall is beyond me.

Now, granted the above quote is just from a congressman who's posturing a little. But it's still annoying.

[Sofa King]

What the fuck are you people talking about?

Yeah, it's a rebate this year, but what it really is is a reduction in the percentage paid. Rich folk win two ways: they get a larger percentage reduction, and as part and parcel of that they also get a shitload more disposable income.

Even though its just a small percentage change, what Georgie just did was he unloaded a huge dollar amount of the tax burden onto the middle class, the people who make less fucking money, the vast majority of the readers here. The average joe will be paying a larger proportion of the tax dollars the U.S. takes in than they were before, and getting less government service for it. And when taxes go up again--and they will--they will continue paying more for less.

We get fewer services, lower quality, and a pittance, while the people who can afford to pay get more fucking money. More fucking money to hire accountants to hide their assets from the government and more fucking money to purchase political influence, which is how we all just got ass-raped in the first place.

Oh, yeah. And this bullshit idea was sold to you in part because it will "encourage savings." Yeppers. That two hundred bucks you get back, properly saved and adjusted for inflation, might be worth three hundred bucks by the time you retire. Congrat-u-fucking-lations. In the meantime, Biff and Muffy just got back a Porsche, and by retirement time, adjusted for inflation, it's going to be a Ferrari, which they can drive on highways they will pay less for than they once did.

I'm sure as hell putting the bone thrown to me in to savings. I'm going to save the environment by giving fifty bucks to Greenpeace, I'm going to save people dying of AIDS by sponsoring a rider in the next ride, I'm going to save a woman's right to choose by donating to the best lobbying group I can find, and I'm going to save the democratic process by donating to the Democratic party. Why? Because my fucking government sure as hell can't be trusted to do any of those things right now.

[Milossarian]

Anybody else picture him banging his shoe on the table during that?

[Sofa King]

I will bury you!

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Sofa King
...and I'm going to save the democratic process by donating to the Democratic party.

This would be really funny, if not so scary.

[Sofa King]

Yeah, I might have been showing a little too much of my red back and my yellow belly there, Anthracite. Consider that last paragraph to be stricken--it's really not relevant to this subject, anyway.

I shouldn't be bothering with this, but it really, really steams me to see people getting screwed over and not even realizing it. This is the Leprechaun joke come to life.

What? You've never heard the Leprechaun joke? Bear with me a minute.

***

A guy walks into a public bathroom and steps up to the urinal. At the next urinal a little man in a green suit and hat steps up, unzips his pants, and whips out an enormous phallus.

The guy looks over, sees this little man in green holding his crank in both hands and says, "holy shit!"

"What, ya never seen a crank this long before laddie? I can give you one, too. I'm a Leprechaun," says the little man.

"You're serious, aren't you?" says the guy.

"Sure, but you have to do something for me before I do," says the little man, gesturing at the stall.

A minute later, the guy has his pants around his ankles and the little man is standing on the toilet giving him the reaming of his life.

"What's your name, laddie?" asks the little man.

"AAH! Kevin!"

"And how old are you, Kevin?" asks the little man.

"Shit! I'm twenty-one!"

"Well, Kevin, don't you think you're a little old to be believin' in Leprechauns?"

***

That's exactly what Bush just did to most of us with his "tax relief". Most of us are going to pay a few hundred bucks less, while the very most wealthy people out there are going to pay thousands, or even tens or hundreds of thousands less. Okay, they earned it. Fine.

In the meantime, gas prices are high again. What percentage of your income goes to paying the percentage tax on that gasoline? What percentage of Poppy Bush's income goes to paying the percentage tax on that gasoline?

Same goes for heating oil, water and electricity, increased taxi and bus fares, the blown suspension on your car that you have replace because you have to drive on shitty roads because transportation funds are being cut. Mark my words: by cutting government services, everyone's cost of living is going to increase. But that increase will be negligible to the wealthiest people.

Before Ron Reagan came to town, wealthy people were bitching because they were paying fifty percent of their income above a certain dollar amount in taxes while all the rest of us were paying half of that. Well, why the fuck aren't we middle class folks indignant because we pay twenty percent of our income in flat taxes while wealthy people pay virtually none?

And why aren't all of you out there livid that this was spoon-fed to you as "relief"?

You don't still believe in Leprechauns, do you?

[Milossarian]

Um, Sofa?

How much do "the rich" pay in taxes?

Or is that irrelevant to this discussion?

Shouldn't any sort of tax relief, which both Democrats and Republicans agree is appropriate, in the trillions of dollars, include those who are providing much of the excess?

Sorry. I get a little queasy when the wealth redistribution gets too zealous. Even if that means those evil rich people benefit. I'm one of those Americans whose idea of "fairness" differs a bit from yours.

[Mandelstam]

Sofa King is exactly right. Not only the poor (a percentage of whom will receive not tax relief whatsoever under Bush's plan) but also the middle class have been reamed by Bush and Co. Most of us non-rich-folk pay a large percentage of our incomes in sales tax and payroll tax. These are pittances to the wealthiest. The worst part of it is is that tax relief in the form of a payroll tax cut, which would have been fairer to the poor and middle-class, would have been better for the economy. So what is the justification for a taxcut that disproportionately benefits the richest one percent?

To the videotape...

First, some basic figures:

"A detailed analysis of the whole $1.6 trillion tax cut, as done by the Citizens for Tax Justice, shows that 43% of it would wind up in the hands of the richest 1% of taxpayers: those with an average income of $915,000 would get an average tax cut of $46,000 a year. For the bottom 60% of taxpayers (income less than $39,000), the average tax cut would be $227."

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10471

On the justification question:

"If one in five children were not living in poverty; if a million eligible children were not denied Head Start; if 44 million Americans -- 11 million of them children -- were not without health insurance; if educational opportunity were more equitably distributed; if opportunities for meaningful employment were available to all those seeking jobs; and if our older citizens never had to choose whether to buy food or their medicines; then, perhaps, a government could afford to return some money even to the rich. But none of these conditions has been achieved."

Source:
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/04/09/2.html


Here is an excerpt from a column by an economist who supports a different kind of tax reform. He asks,

"Is it possible to shift more of the tax burden to the high-end families, the big winners in the new economy, so that middle-class families pay less?
The answer to this question is yes, and the tax change would actually be good for the economy. A small tax on financial transactions, such as the buying or selling of shares of stock, could raise a large amount of revenue, which could be used to reduce income taxes for low- and middle-income workers. A tax of only one-quarter of 1 percent on each purchase or sale of a share of stock could raise more than $ 100 billion a year in revenue. This would be enough to reduce the income tax for a typical family by close to 40 percent."

Source:
http://www.cepr.net/tax_freedom2.htm

And here is an excerpt from an article that contrasts the discrepancy between the average-Joe family benefit that Bush pushed in the media (the Hagens of South Dakota), and the benefit to Bush and his own cabinet members.

"It is clear, however, that the Hagen family of South Dakota, eager for a $1,500 tax break, will reap far less than those running the government. At last year's income levels, Rumsfeld would have saved at least 393 times as much as the Hagens, and Bush would have saved about fifteen times as much, or $23,000. Meanwhile, the median American family with children will get by this year on an estimated before-tax income of $45,600. At the rally in South Dakota, Bush did his best to minimize this divide with a scripted expression of empathy. "$1,500 may not be a lot to some," he told the crowd. "It means a lot to the Hagens." One can only guess what a total tax savings of at least $88.3 million would mean to Bush and fifteen of his closest advisers."

Source:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010625&s=scherer

As I see it, anyone who thinks this tax cut is up to snuff is either very rich, or loves the cool excitement of being fleeced.

[White Lightning]

The OP misunderstood his quote. That senator is not saying the tax cut plan is unfair because the rich get back proportionately more money, what he said was that many lower middle class people get no rebate at all, like Mandelstam is talking about.

So, both Democrats and Republicans support a tax cut. Whoop de fuckin doo-- what did you expect, the Dems were gonna go all out to stop something that was gonna happen anyway? Facing a split Senate and Republican House (not to mention the president), it's not as if they could take up a position against the cut. Give me a break.

[Milossarian]

Mandlestam - Anyone who brings up "the richest 1 percent" without bringing up what percentage of the tax the richest 1 percent PAY gets instantly discredited. Ask Al.

WL -
So, both Democrats and Republicans support a tax cut. Whoop de fuckin doo-- what did you expect, the Dems were gonna go all out to stop something that was gonna happen anyway? Facing a split Senate and Republican House (not to mention the president), it's not as if they could take up a position against the cut. Give me a break.
What?

So, your premise is, the Democrats don't really believe in a tax cut, they were just powerless?

Not giving them much credit for the courage of their convictions, are you?

[White Lightning]

Preface: When I'm with my friends, I like to pretend that I am more knowledgeable than I actually am, and it usually works. I already know that kind of thing doesn't fly here at the Dope and so I try to resist the temptation. That's why I kept my last post short. Glad to get that off my chest.

Milossarian
1) "Anyone who brings up "the richest 1 percent" without bringing up what percentage of the tax the richest 1 percent PAY gets instantly discredited." I'll go you one better and ask you to submit for review what percent of the wealth of this nation is in the hands of that richest 1 percent. Compare that to the percentage of the taxes that they pay, and let's see what we see.

2) I don't pretend to know what the Democrats believe in. I know that had they been opposed to a tax cut, it would have mattered little in the long run. I know that the tax cut was Bush's idea originally. I know that a tax cut wasn't seriously considered with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Putting together what I know, I suspect that many, most, or perhaps only some Democrats that ended up supporting the cut did so only so that they could get it modified. Taking a hardline stance against a tax cut would have been ineffective and self-destructive, whereas if they "supported" it, they could get a word in edgewise about its structure and implementation. People who trumpet around the fact that since both parties participate in a discussion of a proposal, it must naturally be a great idea, seem to me to be thinking in a simpleminded fashion and in ignorance of the realities of politics.

3) As far as: "Not giving them much credit for the courage of their convictions, are you?" In a word, no. Why would I?

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by Milossarian
(B)oth Democrats and Republicans agree [that a tax break] is appropriate, in the trillions of dollars[/B]

As if the Republicans and Democrats represented the entire spectrum of possible opinions!

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by SofaKing
In the meantime, gas prices are high again. What percentage of your income goes to paying the percentage tax on that gasoline? What percentage of Poppy Bush's income goes to paying the percentage tax on that gasoline?

Bwahahahha! Americans complaining about gasoline taxes! Heehee! That's like fish complaining that it's too dry, or something equally ludicrous.

But gasoline taxes, and the mass addiction to a thoroughly inadequate means of transportation, are best reserved for another thread ;)

Speaking of which, it's offically tax-free day in Canada. Whatever :rolleyes:

[Johnny L.A.]

From the IRS webpage (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/ind_info/apinfo/index.html#AdvPmntAmt):
Single taxpayers who paid Federal income taxes for 2000 could receive up to $300. Heads of households could get up to $500, and married couples could receive up to $600. Anyone who could have been claimed as a dependent on another person's 2000 tax return is not eligible for a check.
Forgetting the tax reduction part of the OP and focusing just on the rebate, even the richest one percent of the people in this country will only get 300 bucks.

And as for rebates if you didn't pay taxes, then you shouldn't get a cheque. Would you expect a rebate for a car you didn't buy? But think of it this way: The people who didn't pay taxes are getting a rebate of .05% of the taxes they paid. .05% * $0 = $0.

[UncleBeer]

In the meantime, gas prices are high again ...
Not so fast, jocko. Gas prices are down about 50 cents a gallon just in the last six weeks. At least they are here in Northwest Ohio I filled up yesterday for $1.289 per gallon and I saw the same station selling this morning for $1.249.

Gas, at $1.25 a gallon today, according to the Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), is the equivalent of paying $0.28/gal in 1970. Sounds pretty damned cheap to me. And if you are this free and loose with an easily disprovable fact, the rest of your claims are also suspect.

Before Ron Reagan came to town, wealthy people were bitching because they were paying fifty percent of their income above a certain dollar amount in taxes while all the rest of us were paying half of that.
The top marginal income tax rate when Carter left office was 70%, not fifty.
Well, why the fuck aren't we middle class folks indignant because we pay twenty percent of our income in flat taxes while wealthy people pay virtually none?
I'm not even sure I know what this means. First, I am indignant about the amount of federal tax I pay. Second, where do you get the idea that "wealthy people pay virtually none?" Even Cecil say otherwise.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Mandelstam

"A detailed analysis of the whole $1.6 trillion tax cut, as done by the Citizens for Tax Justice, shows that 43% of it would wind up in the hands of the richest 1% of taxpayers: those with an average income of $915,000 would get an average tax cut of $46,000 a year. For the bottom 60% of taxpayers (income less than $39,000), the average tax cut would be $227."




Ask yourself why we don't give EVERYONE a $46,000 dollar tax cut. Simple answer: most people don't pay anywhere near $46,000 in taxes to begin with.

(Again, I'm not opposed to progressive income taxation. I just object to the way the argument is sometimes framed.)

Maybe a hypothetical will help clarify:

Suppose the nation has a simple two-tier tax system. The richest 1% pay $100,000 (each) a year in taxes; everyone else pays nothing.

Then, for whatever reason, the governent cuts the "head tax" from $100,000 to $80,000.

If you run around saying, "The rich people are getting $20,000 each from the government, and everyone else is getting NOTHING," you're being lame IMHO.

It's just a mathematical fact that, all things being equal, tax cuts benefit the rich more than the poor.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
"A detailed analysis of the whole $1.6 trillion tax cut, as done by the Citizens for Tax Justice, shows that 43% of it would wind up in the hands of the richest 1% of taxpayers: those with an average income of $915,000 would get an average tax cut of $46,000 a year. For the bottom 60% of taxpayers (income less than $39,000), the average tax cut would be $227."

And why didn't you post the figures on how much tax a family making $915,000 a year would pay, and how much a family making $39,000 a year would pay? Go ahead and assume 2 kids.

Here is an excerpt from a column by an economist who supports a different kind of tax reform. He asks,

"Is it possible to shift more of the tax burden to the high-end families, the big winners in the new economy, so that middle-class families pay less?
The answer to this question is yes, and the tax change would actually be good for the economy. A small tax on financial transactions, such as the buying or selling of shares of stock, could raise a large amount of revenue, which could be used to reduce income taxes for low- and middle-income workers. A tax of only one-quarter of 1 percent on each purchase or sale of a share of stock could raise more than $ 100 billion a year in revenue. This would be enough to reduce the income tax for a typical family by close to 40 percent."

So an economist supports a harebrained idea. I can show you a PhD who thinks coal deposits are proof of Noah's Ark too.

This disobeys (in spirit) my personal First Law of Moneydynamics. This is not a "painless" creation of $100 Billion a year. It will come primarily out of the mutual fund retirement accounts of the middle class and poor. You know the brokerage houses will not pay for it, it will be a pass-through cost directly out of your retirement. So, I imagine, some can then say "See? Your much-hailed 401k isn't doing so good! Time to ban them and increase Social Security to 22.5% of your payroll!"

Ah...I love the sound of Class Warfare in the morning...

[Flymaster]

Everyone who paid income taxes for the year 2000 that WON'T be getting the rebate promised to "Every taxpaying American," raise their hand.

Hmm...well, my hand is in the air. I certainly paid taxes last year. Income taxes. And I didn't get it all back. But, I'll be getting fucked over (well, actually, I'm quite happy to see the government keep it, seeing as how the next 4 years look to be VERY long, but still...he promised) because I'm a dependent of another taxpayer. Yep, that's right. College students who are dependents will NOT be getting a refund. Nothing. Not one cent. In fact, I'll be paying in the 15% tax bracket this year, too, not the 10% one that was promised as the lowest bracket (and believe me, I don't get out of the lowest bracket). Why, you ask? Same reason.

I'm just glad that when 2004 comes around, Bush is going to be dealing with a LOT of 20somethings who thought they were going to have an extra $300 this summer than never had a check show up in their mailbox, even thought the news seemed to tell them it would.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
Originally posted by Milossarian
(B)oth Democrats and Republicans agree [that a tax break] is appropriate, in the trillions of dollars

As if the Republicans and Democrats represented the entire spectrum of possible opinions!

[/B]

Sad to say Matt, they're the only ones that matter. It's a fact of political life, that's all.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Flymaster
College students who are dependents will NOT be getting a refund. Nothing. Not one cent. In fact, I'll be paying in the 15% tax bracket this year, too, not the 10% one that was promised as the lowest bracket (and believe me, I don't get out of the lowest bracket). Why, you ask? Same reason.

I'm just glad that when 2004 comes around, Bush is going to be dealing with a LOT of 20somethings who thought they were going to have an extra $300 this summer than never had a check show up in their mailbox, even thought the news seemed to tell them it would.

I guess the questions to ask here are:

1) Are you claiming you get no financial benefit from being a dependent that outweighs any tax issues?

2) And if so, why are you a dependent?

3) You are aware that you are also being made ineligible for many grants and loans being a dependent, due to more income than just yours being reported. Or else being given a smaller amount, most likely. This is something that happened long before Bush. So you would argue, based on the same premise as your post, that you should also be fully eligible for student financial aid, at the same level as an independent taxpaying college student?

[Freedom]

But, I'll be getting fucked over (well, actually, I'm quite happy to see the government keep it, seeing as how the next 4 years look to be VERY long, but still...he promised) because I'm a dependent of another taxpayer. Yep, that's right. College students who are dependents will NOT be getting a refund.


Would you like some cheese with that whine?


I see a simple solution. File an amended tax return for last year and file as a non-dependent. Then tell your parents that need to re-file as well.


I'm sure that $300 you get will moooore than make up for the couple of extra thousand dollars your parents will have to send in.


They may be so pissed at you, that you actually won't be a dependent any more.

[hawthorne]

Posted by Anthracite
So an economist supports a harebrained idea. I can show you a PhD who thinks coal deposits are proof of Noah's Ark too.Your general point is fair enough, but in the case of the financial transactions tax mentioned by Mandelstam, it's not right. Although the link doesn't mention the name, this tax -- proposed by Nobel laureate James Tobin -- is a pretty mainstream idea. Financial markets suffer from excessive volatility due to information problems and the lack of contingent markets. A small tax on turnover would improve the efficiency of financial and all other markets. The difficulty in implementation (like the other dormant efficiency-improving tax, the carbon tax ;)) is mainly in securing universal international implementation and agreement on revenue-sharing.

I don't have a clear view on who would end up paying this tax (unlike the carbon tax which would almost certainly be rather regressive), but it's not a nutjob idea.

Carry on.

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
In the meantime, gas prices are high again ...
Not so fast, jocko. Gas prices are down about 50 cents a gallon just in the last six weeks. At least they are here in Northwest Ohio I filled up yesterday for $1.289 per gallon and I saw the same station selling this morning for $1.249.

Gas, at $1.25 a gallon today, according to the Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), is the equivalent of paying $0.28/gal in 1970. Sounds pretty damned cheap to me. And if you are this free and loose with an easily disprovable fact, the rest of your claims are also suspect.
Here in central New Jersey, the cheapest gas I can find is $1.579/gal. Back in 1998, a mere three years ago, I could get gas at $0.899/gal. Adjusting for inflation, today's gas would have cost $1.51/gal in 1998, an increase of 61 cents per gallon, and a 67.9% increase from three years ago. Gas has gone down a little recently (about 10-20 cents/gallon), but is still expensive when compared to gas of three (rather than thirty-one) years ago.

[Milossarian]

WL - Does this mean you will be telling us how much of that pile of tax money was contributed by the richest 1 percent? Or 5 percent or 10 percent?
People who trumpet around the fact that since both parties participate in a discussion of a proposal, it must naturally be a great idea, seem to me to be thinking in a simpleminded fashion and in ignorance of the realities of politics.
No, I think the fact that you believe a tax cut proposed in the trillions of dollars by the Democrats is something they don't really mean or believe in is "simpleminded."

And you seem to be missing something. This isn't about "participating in a discussion of a proposal." The Democrats proposed their own tax cut. By the time they were done raising and raising their proposal, it wasn't significantly less than that proposed by Bush.

Why would taking a hardline stance against a tax cut they "didn't believe in" be "self-destructive?"

I know the answer. So do you. But it will be amusing to watch you tell it.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Flymaster
Everyone who paid income taxes for the year 2000 that WON'T be getting the rebate promised to "Every taxpaying American," raise their hand.



Unfortunately, Mrs. Lucwarm will be spending (actually, has already spent) our $600 on clothes, (which clothes are not particularly revealing).

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Freedom

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I see a simple solution. File an amended tax return for last year and file as a non-dependent. Then tell your parents that need to re-file as well.

I'm sure that $300 you get will moooore than make up for the couple of extra thousand dollars your parents will have to send in.


You've missed my point entirely, as has Anthracite.

I don't WANT a tax refund. I don't need one, I don't deserve one, and I don't think a tax refund is a good idea. If I were getting a tax refund, I'd probably be donating it to the DNC.

That said, however, I, along with probably a million others just like me, were PROMISED a refund. And not just in the campaign, either. Afterwards, even after the cut was passed. Bush claimed, in his speech on 5/26, that "late this summer and into the fall, every single American who pays income taxes will receive a check."

I'm just saying that this is complete and total utter bullshit, and this shouldn't be allowed to slip past unnoticed. I AM NOT GETTING A CHECK. I paid taxes. Income taxes. But I AM NOT GETTING A CHECK. Why this is allowed to go under the media's radar, I have no idea.

But let me be clear. I'm not mad that I'm not getting a check. I don't want one and I don't deserve one. That doesn't change the fact, however, the the President of the United States flat out LIED to the citizens of this country about the effects of his tax cut.

That is all.

[Una Persson]

Fair enough, Flymaster, your earlier post certainly implied something different. But thank you for clarifying.

Do you have a link to a news article or something where Bush said that? I'm not challenging you on it, I just would like to see a complete quote of exactly what he said.

[Flymaster]

The Bush speech where he makes the claim:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/bush.text/index.html

(the specific sentence is located next to the bottom of the bar on the left.)

Some commentary on students and children re: the tax cut:

http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/06/25/career/q_klott_column/index.htm

[John Corrado]

Originally posted by lucwarm

Unfortunately, Mrs. Lucwarm will be spending (actually, has already spent) our $600 on clothes, (which clothes are not particularly revealing).

Aw, shucks, lucwarm. If the missus was going to spend that much money on clothes, *I'd* have hoped they'd be more revealing. I mean, geez, give a guy *something*, right?

John

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Sofa King
Y, while the very most wealthy people out there are going to pay thousands, or even tens or hundreds of thousands less.

Millions . Last I read, Dick Cheney is going to be saving about $2 million a year. Thank god for that, eh?

I was considering what I would do with my rebate.... the first thing that came to mind was to wipe my ass with it and send it to Bush. but then I realized it wouldn't actually be in his hands, so I think I'm probably going to donate it to the Democrats.

stoid

PS: We are back to the same thing it always is: Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me" and those on the left are saying "I don't need it, let's share it, let's spend it on things we ALL NEED, (except for the rich, of course, who will be able to pay for any little thing they need or desire throughout their lives: health care, child care, top notch education, etc. )"

God help us.

stoid

[mouthbreather]

Originally posted by Stoid
Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me"


Yes, a much better approach is this: "it's my money, I paid it, BUT SOMEONE ELSE deserves it, give it to them."

:rolleyes:

[UncleBeer]

Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me" and those on the left are saying "I don't need it, let's share it, let's spend it on things we ALL NEED ...
Can you possibly be any more narrow-minded and simple? This is a complete mischaracterization of the objectives of both the right and the left.

First, the left does not wish to spend this money on things we ALL NEED. They wish to spend it on entitlements, subsidies and more government to benefit a select minority of the populace. I most assuredly NEED none of these, nor do the vast majority of the United States Citizens. Quit bluffing yourself; the Democrats are no more altruistic than any other political party.

Second, the right wishes to return some of your hard-earned tax dollars with the sure and certain belief that you'll either spend it, or save it. Those are the only two likely things anyone can do with this money; not very many people are going to bury it in the back yard. Now, that money you've either spent, or saved, stimulates the economy. This is a simple and well known fact. And then, a stimulated economy will autonomously generate additional wealth which will naturally be distributed among all econmic sectors. Yes, this is the old trickle-down Reaganomics. But ya know what? It fucking worked last time. It'll likely work again.

Finally, donating your refund to a political party is just about the dumbest damn thing you can do with it. Logically, it makes no fucking sense. If you believe you are donating to the Democrats to help elect more of them and they'll in turn vote to spend tax dollars, through those subsidies and entitlements mentioned above, to causes you support, why don't you just donate your tax refund directly to those causes? Cut out the damned middleman and the inherent inefficiencies.

Wake up, Stoid.

[Mandelstam]

Milossarian "Mandlestam - Anyone who brings up "the richest 1 percent" without bringing up what percentage
of the tax the richest 1 percent PAY gets instantly discredited. Ask Al."

Say what? Last I heard Al Gore got 200,000 more votes than did his rich-butt-kissing opponent, and lost the election due to various technicalities too widely known to rehearse. Moreover, throughout the whole of the election, Gore's "targeted" tax-cutting plan consistently polled higher with the American people than did Bush's plan.

For the record, I'm not a Gore lover, but I prefer targeted tax cuts for two simple reasons: 1) tax cuts that put more dollars into the hands of the working and middle classes are better for the economy and 2) I object to tax cuts that have regressive effects on purely moral grounds. It's interesting that from all the cites that I posted, not one of you Bush supporters has addressed the morality of cutting taxes for the rich while children and elderly people are deprived of basic human needs. Were it necessary to the economy, that might provide a utilitarian justification for a fatcat tax-cut; but it's been demonstrated over and over again that tax-cuts for fatcats don't efficiently boost the economy--certainly not at the rate that tax-cuts for the working poor would.

Milo and others can argue till they're blue in the face that if the rich pay the most they should get the most back. Well, that's one kind of logic but, for the reasons I name above, it's not a persuasive logic for me. To argue that relative tax burdens should be measured as a proportion of one's income, rather than on a net basis, is simply to recognize the world that we live in: there are people living in our country whose wealth is equivalent to the GDP of small nations. Do these people require tax "relief" of any kind. One can easily argue that since the richest 1% have benefited the most from society they should be expected to contribute the most. Consider how much more of an investment they have in the status quo than a person struggling to get by on a minimum wage.

Anthracite, that taste of crow might be a little less bitter if you had the guts to apologize. You and I may disagree, and perhaps I've not been round here long enough for you to have read any of my posts. On the whole, however, I don't think you'll find that I'm one to pass off bitumen for diamonds; and the only "crackpots" I bother reading are on the SDMB ;).

[manhattan]

Originally posted by Stoid
...I think I'm probably going to donate it to the Democrats.

stoid

PS: We are back to the same thing it always is: Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me" and those on the left are saying "I don't need it, let's share it, let's spend it on things we ALL NEED, (except for the rich, of course, who will be able to pay for any little thing they need or desire throughout their lives: health care, child care, top notch education, etc. )"
As it happens, I’ll probably give my rebate to an AIDS charity with an international focus. I have to review some financial reports first, since I don’t like it if too much money goes to administrative or fundraising activities. This is kind of a new area of charitable giving for me, so I don’t know who’s good at it, if anyone. But if you want to give yours to a bunch of party hacks instead, well, it’s your money.

It really takes a remarkable kind of intellect to hate George Bush and the Republicans as much as you do and still conclude that he and they would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

You really are that simpleminded, aren’t you? Wow. No wonder you think the government should keep the money. You think everyone is as stupid as you are.

Or would you prefer that my $300 went to a missile defense shield instead? Cripes.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
They wish to spend it on entitlements, subsidies and more government to benefit a select minority of the populace.

And you think that the right is not interested in subsidies and entitlements? Now who's asleep?

It's about who each side is interested in subsidizing and "entitling" if you will. The left: individual human beings in need of the same things that make all our lives better: health care, education, food, housing, environmentla protections, etc. And the right? If we're talking "select minorities", I think the Right wins hands down. (Did you know that according to the dept of health and Human Services, nearly 37 million Americans were living in poverty in 1996? Quite a minority.) Because they want to subsidize big corporations, shareholders, the rich in all their many varieties. Because it's important that the rich keep getting richer. After all, if they don't, the economy will collapse, we'll back to the dark days of the Depression, and then we'll elect some Commie to turn us all into socialists, not to mention the fact that the earth will open up and swallow us all.

If we're gonna subsidze something (and we're gonna, one way or another) I'll subsidize individual human beings who have fundamental human needs. Not people and corporations whose single need is to be even more rich and powerful.

stoid

PS: Please do not take this to mean that I am under the impression that the Democrats are saints. Campaign finance rules make that an impossibility.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by manhattan

It really takes a remarkable kind of intellect to hate George Bush and the Republicans as much as you do and still conclude that he and they would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

You really are that simpleminded, aren’t you? Wow. No wonder you think the government should keep the money. You think everyone is as stupid as you are.

Or would you prefer that my $300 went to a missile defense shield instead? Cripes.


Gee, Manhattan, do you think it makes you look smart to call me stupid?

And how in heaven's name do you arrive at me thinking that Bush and Co. are going to do a better job of spending the money?


stoid

BTW, if it makes any difference, continuing to resort to personal attacks will ensure a one-sided conversation from this point on. If that's what you're after, enjoy!

[manhattan]

And how in heaven's name do you arrive at me thinking that Bush and Co. are going to do a better job of spending the money?

::sigh:: You know, Bush in the White House, Republican House, that sort of thing. If they hadn't voted to send some of the money back to me and you, well, they would have spent it. Republicans, that is. You know, the guys you hate. And they would have spent it on something stupid, like a missile shield. Do try to follow along.

And cut the crocodile tears about "personal insults." You include a personal insult to every Republican in substantially every post you make. That includes me, and many other posters on the board. For you to get upset when someone returns in kind the crap you dish out is hypocrisy. Or (heh) stupidity.

I, on the other hand, limit the scope of my observation to you. And it's not really an attack. I honestly believe that you are stupid. Hope that helps.

[Mandelstam]

Follow-up to Anthracite, I should have quoted you as saying "harebrained" rather than "crackpot." My apologies.

[OxyMoron]

Here's the problem:

The most effective tax policy is the one that strikes most of us as, superficially, the least fair: Provide a large cut in marginal tax rates, which benefit primarily the wealthiest. This little rebate is nothing more than cheap gimmick, because it ain't enough for anyone to save. That, you see, is where the real multipliers exist - whether the savings go to banks, mutual funds, or (better still) risky venture capital, the dollars so invested multiply much faster than the dollar spent on immediate consumption.

The reason you want a reduction in marginal tax rates is precisely because it gives rich folks too damn much money to spend. Instead, they'll invest.

In fact, there's some research indicating that changes in tax policy don't have much effect on rich folks' spending - they spend a certain amount, and what's left over they invest. Increase the amount available for investment, and that results in more wealth and job creation, which means that overall the entire system is better off, and indeed, tax receipts increase for governments. (This is particularly true for capital-gains taxes - raising rates results in asset fire-sales prior the rate increase, thus depressing asset prices and guaranteeing that government comes out behind.)

The fundamental fallacy behind much traditional "liberal" tax policy is that they assume (a) that tax policy doesn't affect behavior, and (b) even if it does, everyone behaves the same. The problem is that the rich indeed are different from you or I, because their behavior has the greatest impact and because they invest rather than change spending.

Now, some wag is bound to ask if tax rates for the wealthy should be reduced to zero. No, of course not. And I'm not a flat-taxer either, I believe in graduated rates under which a majority of the citizens of this country simply don't pay taxes at all. (In fact, I'd love a breakdown of how many people do, in fact, either pay no taxes or receive an Earned Income Tax Credit, which means they actually take more out each year than they put in.) What I do believe is that when you need a stimulus to wealth and job creation, you focus it where you'll get the most results for everyone, even if on the face it's counterintuitive.

Oh, and then there's this little question of wealth. With the exception of estate and land taxes, by and large we don't tax wealth in this country and that's A Good Thing. You see, if we tax wealth, we force people to sell assets. That depresses asset values, which results in a downward spiral to the economy. Plus, it results in some real injustices - perhaps not for W.'s putative family-farmers, but for older people who suddenly can't afford the property taxes on the modest home they've owned for 35 years.

Nope, on a superficial basis none of this is fair. But the effect of failing to view the economy dynamically results in Eurosclerosis, where the most dynamic economies (Britain, the Netherlands and Ireland) are those that have most rationalized and reduced their tax burdens. It works, and as imperfect as it is it results in the largest job creation around. And it even results in a pretty decent standard of living (ever reviewed what percent of the population has telephones, televisions and air conditioners?), even if it is highly unequal. It really doesn't matter where the ceiling is provided that the floor is reasonably clean. Yes, there are holes by region (Appalachia, inner cities) and in such categories as health insurance (although frequently people misunderstand lack of health insurance as lack of health care, which most emphatically doesn't follow). But the alternatives are worse.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by OxyMoron
That, you see, is where the real multipliers exist - whether the savings go to banks, mutual funds, or (better still) risky venture capital, the dollars so invested multiply much faster than the dollar spent on immediate consumption.
Eh. I think the jury's still out on this one. Personally, I think when the historians write about the recession that I believe we are currently in, we'll find that it was an investment-led recession. That is to say, too many companies had access to too much cheap capital for too long. They built up productivity faster than the ability of consumers to buy the increased production, and they failed to bring unit costs down enough profitably to pass on pricing decreases sufficient to get that consumer to change his mind.

So the economy is choking right now on excess capacity and (to a lesser extent in most industries) inventory.

Add to that the layoffs that resulted from hirings that never should have occurred in the first place (also attributable to too-cheap capital, as in the internet sector or long-haul fiber, for examples), and I think you'll have this recession in a nutshell.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Anthracite, that taste of crow might be a little less bitter if you had the guts to apologize. You and I may disagree, and perhaps I've not been round here long enough for you to have read any of my posts. On the whole, however, I don't think you'll find that I'm one to pass off bitumen for diamonds; and the only "crackpots" I bother reading are on the SDMB ;).

Remind me...what is it exactly I don't have the "guts" to apologize for?

I called the idea "harebrained". I didn't call the economist or yourself harebrained. No additional information has been given to me (other than a short bit by picmr) that convinces me otherwise. For your part, you did not expand upon it any further either. You also did not post the tax amount I asked for, but I think that is a moot point now.

It's a harebrained idea if Democrats are pushing it as another "this will mainly affect the rich" scheme. $100 billion doesn't just appear from a few rich fatcats. It comes out of the mutual funds of the working families out there. It will be a pass-through cost. I'm waiting for someone to convince me otherwise before I "apologize".

Recapping: I didn't call you harebrained, I didn't even call your economist you quote harebrained. You decided to make a comment about my "guts". I can point you to a few threads where I show how much I have in the way of "guts". And how abjectly I can apologize if I am wrong.

You have chosen to make this personal with your "guts" comment. I think you need to think very carefully as to whether you really want to start something with me over this.

[Mandelstam]

Oxy"The fundamental fallacy behind much traditional "liberal" tax policy is that they assume (a) that tax policy doesn't affect behavior, and (b) even if it does, everyone behaves the same."

Really? Can you please provide the name of one liberal tax policy strategist who believes that tax policy doesn't affect behavior? Or a link to a self-styled liberal economist who argues that "everyone behaves the same."

For about decade now, I've been reading a lot of left and liberal analyses of economics and tax policy. The funny thing is I've never come across this "traditional" view.

Most of the liberal analyses I've read argue that tax cuts do in fact enable those who don't already consume as much as they possibly can to consume a bit more. Shockingly, they too have managed to glom on to your earth-shattering revelation that rich people don't need tax cuts in order to spend; they tend to "invest" the money instead.

Although I don't know that manhattan thinks of himself as a liberal, he's already provided the same kind of arguments that I've been reading as to the inability of tax-cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy. (Another argument I've heard is that income tax cuts--vs. payroll tax cuts--take too long to stimulate, even if they had been targeted at the right people).

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Stoid
Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me" and those on the left are saying "I don't need it, let's share it, let's spend it on things we ALL NEED..."

I want to modify that a bit for my situation over here on the libertarian side:

"It's my money, I earned it by working my motherfucking ass off and by doing the responsible thing and saving for my future, I paid it, I do need it, give it back to me so I can spend it on things I need!"

There. I like that one better. :D

[Mandelstam]

Anthracite, You may be certain that I know you are not a shrinking violet; and I'm sure that you would make a formidable foe in an electronic catfight. I have no interest in starting one as I'm sure both of us have better things to do.

Whether you agree with him or not, the economist I posted was legit, his idea is worth considering; workable or not, the idea is neither harebrained nor tantamout to your friend, the Noah's Ark-touting PhD. To be sure, this is the Pit. But it's my practice, and that of the posters whom I most respect, to do justice to those who argue seriously, and who take time with their posts, by not casting slurs on the information they provide. That is all I meant. Perhaps it's me who doesn't know you well enough to appreciate the, um, well-intentioned piquancy of your rhetorical style. <bows>

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Anthracite, You may be certain that I know you are not a shrinking violet; and I'm sure that you would make a formidable foe in an electronic catfight. I have no interest in starting one as I'm sure both of us have better things to do.

Yes, but there are two parts to that. I also do admit when I am wrong, or have done wrong.

Whether you agree with him or not, the economist I posted was legit, his idea is worth considering; workable or not, the idea is neither harebrained nor tantamout to your friend, the Noah's Ark-touting PhD. To be sure, this is the Pit. But it's my practice, and that of the posters whom I most respect, to do justice to those who argue seriously, and who take time with their posts, by not casting slurs on the information they provide. That is all I meant. Perhaps it's me who doesn't know you well enough to appreciate the, um, well-intentioned piquancy of your rhetorical style. <bows>

OK...that is a much better way to say you think I am screwed for thinking it is harebrained. Thank you; I can accept that. :)

[Athena]

Another thing to think about for those of you who are maintaining that the Evil Rich shouldn't get tax cuts. You are closer to the Evil Rich than you think. High taxes and what I consider unfair tax laws don't just happen to people who are bringing in a million or more bucks a year; once you get into the mid to high five figure range, or your investments start to pay off, you'll be subject to some pretty damn harsh tax laws.

I, for one, am dealing with the fact that I get to pay tax on money from stock options that never hits my check book. Yup, that's right. I get to pay tax on money that I currently don't, and never did, have. Yes, it's great that my company did well and gave me options that are worth something, even in this shitty economy. But I could easily have easily gotten to a point where I owed more than I own, even if I liquidate everything. All on money that I never had a chance to spend.

I, for one, am all for the tax cut. Even though it doesn't fix the above situation, I'll take anything I can get.

[OxyMoron]

`Originally posted by Mandelstam
Oxy"The fundamental fallacy behind much traditional "liberal" tax policy is that they assume (a) that tax policy doesn't affect behavior, and (b) even if it does, everyone behaves the same."

Really? Can you please provide the name of one liberal tax policy strategist who believes that tax policy doesn't affect behavior? Or a link to a self-styled liberal economist who argues that "everyone behaves the same."

For about decade now, I've been reading a lot of left and liberal analyses of economics and tax policy. The funny thing is I've never come across this "traditional" view.

Most of the liberal analyses I've read argue that tax cuts do in fact enable those who don't already consume as much as they possibly can to consume a bit more. Shockingly, they too have managed to glom on to your earth-shattering revelation that rich people don't need tax cuts in order to spend; they tend to "invest" the money instead.

Although I don't know that manhattan thinks of himself as a liberal, he's already provided the same kind of arguments that I've been reading as to the inability of tax-cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy. (Another argument I've heard is that income tax cuts--vs. payroll tax cuts--take too long to stimulate, even if they had been targeted at the right people).

The "traditional" view appears not in the evaluation of tax policy in general - you're right, self-styled liberals manage to persuade themselves that a laundry list of "targeted" tax cuts will cure the ills of the world. No, it appears in their analysis of cuts in marginal rates, in which they seem totally uprepared to credit any longer-term economic gains to lowering marginal rates. Nevermind that "targeted" tax cuts usually (a) either result in reams of new material in the Federal Registor, or miss their targets, (b) generally reward choices that people were going to make anyway (like a college education), and (c) tend to ignore market responses (like the inevitable increase in tuition, meaning that the tax cut ends up eaten by Whassmatta U. anyway). We'll set aside (d), the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of pursuing social policy through the tax code.

Now, as to Manhattan's point - he's speaking of the economy right now, which frankly is the least of our worries. I suspect that he's right - a tax cut won't help at the moment. I remain unpersuaded that consumption-oriented tax cuts would help any more, and certainly in the long run it's much more likely to make mischief.

We're getting at what's actually a deeper problem: generally, the left tends to be more concerned with what's happening Right Now, and urges government to Do Something. We're always in a Crisis - a Poverty Crisis, an Alar-in-the-Apples Crisis, an Childhood Violence Crisis. My experience is that often by the time governments gets around to Doing Something, the immediate need is long past. The greater problem is that almost always, Doing Something imposes horrific long-term costs, such as completely distorting the rental-property market in New York City, destroying an industry, or imposing regulations forcing teachers to spy on parents.

My response is that in the short term, we're all fucked and the quicker we get used to it the better off we'll be. I stand by my prescriptions for the long term, which is the only term we have even a prayer of affecting.

[OxyMoron]

that should read, "a marginal tax cut won't help at the moment."

[manhattan]

For the record, I make no assertion (in this thread) regarding the efficacy of targeted v. broad tax cuts.

I was simply commenting on the roots of this particular (maybe) recession.

As a provider of too much too cheap capital, I felt the need to fess up!

[Mandelstam]

OxyMoron"[The "traditional" liberal economic view] appears in their analysis of cuts in marginal rates, in which they seem totally uprepared to credit any longer-term economic gains to lowering marginal rates.

Please define precisely what you mean by "cuts in marginal rates" so that I know how to respond.

"We're getting at what's actually a deeper problem: generally, the left tends to be more concerned with what's happening Right Now, and urges government to Do Something. We're always in a Crisis - a Poverty Crisis, an Alar-in-the-Apples Crisis, an Childhood Violence Crisis."

Sorry, oxy but this is not the leftwing economic spectrum that I know. Most of the lefty economists I read are concerned precisely with the long-term picture. For example, Lester Thurow, who argues that the US is not investing enough in job training and R & D and will not be competitive with the Europeans in the long-term. Or Cobb (that name is from memory) who argues that GDP is not a good measure of economic prosperity because it doesn't take factors such as sustainable development into account. Or the Economic Policy Institute which persistently argues that conservative economists don't think enough about the trade deficit or oversupply; and that, historically, conservatives have been too concerned with lowering inflation and increasing profits and too little concerned with long-term growth of the kind that is likely to benefit most Americans in the form of good, secure and high-paying jobs. Whether one agrees with these positions or not, these are not short-term goals.

I would add that it's a bit strange to argue that "poverty" is a "Right Now" crisis. Or childhood violence, for that matter. I'm well aware that some conservatives feel that poverty is inevitable for some people; but that's different from saying that it's a temporary issue that comes and goes.

Do you actually read left or liberal economists? Or do you just read strawman versions of their arguments served up by people who already agree with you? I ask this question seriously--not as a snide remark--because you seem intelligent and yet you don't seem truly familiar with the liberal positions you are critiquing. You might actually find it interesting to read something by one of the economists I've mentioned. They're smart people, and, whatever you ultimately decided about their ideas, I don't think you'd end up rejecting them b/c on the grounds of endemic shortsightedness.

[jab1]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
a stimulated economy will autonomously generate additional wealth which will naturally be distributed among all econmic sectors. Yes, this is the old trickle-down Reaganomics. But ya know what? It fucking worked last time.Cite, please.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by OxyMoron


We're getting at what's actually a deeper problem: generally, the left tends to be more concerned with what's happening Right Now, and urges government to Do Something. We're always in a Crisis - a Poverty Crisis, an Alar-in-the-Apples Crisis, an Childhood Violence Crisis.

I dunno, I think some "short term, oh my god we have to fix this horrible situation right now" things have come from the other side as well. I submit to you The Need to Federally Legislate Where Boy Scouts Can Meet. Or how about Mandatory Sentencing for Drug Offenders? Or By Gum, Our Moral Fiber Is Being Destroyed by Mapplethorpe And His Ilk And I'll Be Damned If I Let Federal Money Support It!

[elfkin477]

Originally posted by Protesilaus
Originally posted by UncleBeer
In the meantime, gas prices are high again ...
Not so fast, jocko. Gas prices are down about 50 cents a gallon just in the last six weeks. At least they are here in Northwest Ohio I filled up yesterday for $1.289 per gallon and I saw the same station selling this morning for $1.249.

Gas, at $1.25 a gallon today, according to the Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), is the equivalent of paying $0.28/gal in 1970. Sounds pretty damned cheap to me. And if you are this free and loose with an easily disprovable fact, the rest of your claims are also suspect.
Here in central New Jersey, the cheapest gas I can find is $1.579/gal. Back in 1998, a mere three years ago, I could get gas at $0.899/gal. Adjusting for inflation, today's gas would have cost $1.51/gal in 1998, an increase of 61 cents per gallon, and a 67.9% increase from three years ago. Gas has gone down a little recently (about 10-20 cents/gallon), but is still expensive when compared to gas of three (rather than thirty-one) years ago.

A dollar twenty five??? It hasn't been that cheap here (NH)for over a year. The local stations have it at $1.73 and the cheapest I've seen it is $1.68, except for a fluke this Sunday when a couple of stations had it as low as $1.57, though they're back up to "normal" prices now. Gas prices are within 4 cents of their all-time high here, so we aren't experiencing any significant price drops.

However, the problem with the argument about ajusting for inflation after it being cheaper 3 years ago is that it was way cheaper than normal that year. When gas was going for $.95 during the spring of 98(or was in 99? whichever), it was a big drop, the prices the three years before in those months were about $1.20 or so.

[milroyj]

the the President of the United States flat out LIED to the citizens of this country

Can't imagine when the last time that took place :rolleyes:

[Milossarian]

We are back to the same thing it always is: Those on the right are singing "me me me me me...it's my money, I paid it, I deserve it, give it back to me" and those on the left are saying "I don't need it, let's share it, let's spend it on things we ALL NEED, (except for the rich, of course, who will be able to pay for any little thing they need or desire throughout their lives: health care, child care, top notch education, etc. )"
That's the beauty of your tax refund -- you people on the Left who don't need it and want to share it can do so with whomever you choose.

What is the fascination by those in your ideology of spending other people's money?

And quit portraying those who don't support such brazen, misguided self-importance as orphan-kickers. I don't object to a federal government, or all the things in its budget. They're FUNDED. They took MORE TAX MONEY THAN THE BUDGET REQUIRED. A lot more.

Want to spend more of my money on government? Give it to my city council.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan


I dunno, I think some "short term, oh my god we have to fix this horrible situation right now" things have come from the other side as well. I submit to you The Need to Federally Legislate Where Boy Scouts Can Meet. Or how about Mandatory Sentencing for Drug Offenders? Or By Gum, Our Moral Fiber Is Being Destroyed by Mapplethorpe And His Ilk And I'll Be Damned If I Let Federal Money Support It!

hehehehehehe. Good one.

stoid

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by OxyMoron
The reason you want a reduction in marginal tax rates is precisely because it gives rich folks too damn much money to spend. Instead, they'll invest.



Where?

We live, as various people never tire of telling us, in a globalized market. What guarantee does a policy-maker have that cutting taxes to the rich will cause investments within the polity they are meant to be serving?

If Paul Martin tries to improve the Canadian economy by cutting Canadian billionaires' taxes, how the hell does he know that that money won't end up invested in the United States, or Japan, or the Cayman Islands, or anywhere but Canada?

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by milroyj
the the President of the United States flat out LIED to the citizens of this country

Can't imagine when the last time that took place :rolleyes:

Right, right. 2 things. Bush campaigned on "returning dignity to the office." He therefore is not allowed, in my estimation, to tell even little white lies, let alone a lie about something as important as money.

Second, Clinton didn't lie about anything important that actually affected me. He lied about a blow job. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it not a problem. It does, however, make it much less of a problem than lying about my money so he could get elected.

[UncleBeer]

Second, Clinton didn't lie about anything important that actually affected me.
Except that tax cut he campaigned on.

Jab1, I don't feel it necessary to provide you with a cite. Reagan cut the marginal tax rates, spent the shit out of federal money he didn't have, and the goddamned recession went away didn't it? If you need a cite for this, go to the library and read your local newspapers for 1981 thru 1989. Don't be so thick.

[Mandelstam]

UncleBeer, are you suggesting that Reagan's record breaking budget deficits, the highest budget deficits in US history, were responsible for ending the recession? Let us bear in mind that the recession didn't end until the mid '90s, by which point taxes had to be raised and spending shrunk in order to eliminate those deficits. We can certainly argue about what precisely led to the end of the recession, but I haven't heard anyone (certainly not Alan Greenspan and his enthusiasts) arguing for budget deficits. jab1 is entitled to some cites--whether you wish to provide them or not. Up until very recently "trickle-down" theory has been a kind of laughingstock, and even conservative pundits avoided the term. It's only in these heady economic times, and with a Republican president now in place, that the term has come back into style. History, as they say, is written by the victors. Though in this case, I'd say, that it's far too soon to make a call.

[jab1]

If "trickle-down" was so good, why did Bush Sr. call it "voodoo economics" when he was running for president against Reagan? (We all know why he "changed his mind" about it later: He wanted to be VP.)

[Cerowyn]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
If Paul Martin tries to improve the Canadian economy by cutting Canadian billionaires' taxes, how the hell does he know that that money won't end up invested in the United States, or Japan, or the Cayman Islands, or anywhere but Canada?

Mostly 'cause you pay lower taxes on capital gains earned from Canadian investments. Not a foolproof scheme, obviously, if foreign investments pay enough to offset the higher taxes, but it's a start.

[UncleBeer]

Spending has shrunk? That's a good one. What shrank was is the percentage amount of the annual increase. Baseline budgeting and all that. You will also note that federal spending became a greater and greater percentage of the GDP every year under Clinton. But actual spending, no matter how you measure it, went up each and every year of the Clinton administration.

And no, I'm not suggesting the Reagan's deficit spending was responsible for ending the recession. I'm suggesting his tax cuts were. But I do believe a small federal deficit can be a good thing.

Let us bear in mind that the recession didn't end until the mid '90s.
Ummm, are you talking about the short recession that doomed Bush, Sr.'s bid for a second term? That ain't really what I'm referring to. I had in mind the Carter years. Huge interest rates, massive unemployment, runaway inflation, and gargantuan federal income tax rates. All that most certainly went away during the Reagan tenure, not during the Clinton era.

If "trickle-down" was so good, why did Bush Sr. call it "voodoo economics" when he was running for president against Reagan?
Jab1, you've answered your own question with, well, your own question.

Finally, Mandelstam, if you want to debate the causes of the end of the recession, post it in GD. I'd be happy to participate in a more formal manner there. I just don't see the point of doing that here in the Pit. I consider that wasted effort.

[jab1]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
Jab1, you've answered your own question with, well, your own question.If you're saying Bush Sr is a liar, I'd agree. But when was he lying? When he said "trickle-down" was "voodoo" or when he said it would work?

I wonder what Alan Greenspan thinks about "trickle-down voodoo"?

[milroyj]

Flymaster, there is a (not insignificant) difference between campaign promises and perjury. Just for the record.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by milroyj
Flymaster, there is a (not insignificant) difference between campaign promises and perjury. Just for the record.

And, milroyj, there is not significant evidence that Mr. Clinton purjured himself. If there had been, there would, of course, be a trial, and, along with it, a conviction. But don't let that stop you from accusing him. Also, when the fuck did this get to be the Clinton Bashing thread, and when did I defend him? I said it was wrong. I said that his lying/misleading testimony wasn't insignificant.

My point was that Bush lied. Not that nobody else had ever lied.

Just for the record.

[milroyj]

And, milroyj, there is not significant evidence that Mr. Clinton purjured himself. If there had been, there would, of course, be a trial, and, along with it, a conviction. But don't let that stop you from accusing him. Also, when the fuck did this get to be the Clinton Bashing thread, and when did I defend him? I said it was wrong. I said that his lying/misleading testimony wasn't insignificant.

Clinton bashing--where? (I didn't even mention his name, for crissakes).

No signficant evidence that Mr Clinton perjured himself? Are you serious? See here for the Articles of Impeachement http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articletext120998.htm
Article I Perjury before the Grand Jury
Article II Perjury in the Jones case
There was a trial, bucko, but yes, he was acquitted in the Senate.

Then, on April 12, 1999, Judge Susan Webber Wright held Clinton in contempt of court, ruling that he had "responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process..." For that he lost his law license for five years and paid a $25,000 fine. Hmm, no evidence of perjury there.

So now let's see your evidence that President Bush "LIED to the American People".

[milroyj]

Oops, sorry Flymaster, I jumped the gun with the last sentence in my post. I reread page one on this thread and your links to the President's speech. Saying "every single American" will receive a check is definitley stretching the truth. But stretching the truth in a political speech and lying under oath are quite different, IMHO.

[hawthorne]

Although UncleBeer has counselled against bothering to talk about what ended the recession in this forum, I'm going to go so far as to draw a quick distinction between the voodoo economics part and what actually happened.

UncleBeer has it right about coming out of the recession: the tax cut caused a fiscal deficit which stimulated the economy. Far from being an oddball idea this is a standard result from macroeconomic theory that you would learn in undergraduate macro. In the IS-LM framework a move towards deficit shifts the IS (goods market) curve to the right, increasing aggregate activity and income. In general, spending increases are more effective at this than tax cuts.* There may of course be other reasons why you wouldn't want to do this, but it is an entirely standard response to get out of a recession by deficit finance.

Notice however that this was exactly the opposite of Reagan's stated thinking, which is the part that was (correctly IMPO) labelled "voodoo economics". According to the supply siders, the tax cut would increase tax revenue by stimulating incentives and the economy would recover by virtue of the efficiency and productivity gains. Not many believed it at the time and almost no-one does now.

So to argue that the Reagan tax cut brought the US economy out of recession by demand stimulus is to argue that supply side economics failed, and dismally so.

*because there is a (1-marginal propensity to save) on the denominator of the dT term and not on the dG term.

[Mandelstam]

pic, would you mind reposting your reply in GD, where I've opened a thread called, "The Gipper and the Recession (or how you do that voodoo that you do so well)." I don't want to take part in two discussions of the same thing in two different forums. ;) Thanks.

[Milossarian]

What ended the recession? Please, people.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that a couple of enormous new industries developed almost out of the blue - computers and all the revolutions in telecommunications. And the ripple effects from both spread and spread.

Clinton gets little credit for that. Bush the Elder gets little blame for that. (Although I do give Clinton and Congress credit for staying the hell out of the way and not fucking it up somehow.)

[jshore]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Sorry. I get a little queasy when the wealth redistribution gets too zealous.

Those who actually believe the sort of drivel about wealth redistribution provided by Rush Limbaugh and the Cato Institute might actually want to read up on the extent to which there is actually (downward) wealth redistribution in the U.S. before they decide that this wealth redistribution has gotten too zealous.

Originally posted by Anthracite
"It's my money, I earned it by working my motherfucking ass off and by doing the responsible thing and saving for my future, I paid it, I do need it, give it back to me so I can spend it on things I need!"


It always fascinates me how these arguments about taxes bring out all these people who pay taxes to the U.S. government yet apparently live on desert islands and thus accumulate all of their earnings without any reliance on said government to provide things like roads, law enforcement, education (for them and their employees), ...

I never knew there were so many such people around!

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by milroyj
And, milroyj, there is not significant evidence that Mr. Clinton purjured himself. If there had been, there would, of course, be a trial, and, along with it, a conviction. But don't let that stop you from accusing him. Also, when the fuck did this get to be the Clinton Bashing thread, and when did I defend him? I said it was wrong. I said that his lying/misleading testimony wasn't insignificant.

Clinton bashing--where? (I didn't even mention his name, for crissakes).

No signficant evidence that Mr Clinton perjured himself? Are you serious? See here for the Articles of Impeachement http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articletext120998.htm
Article I Perjury before the Grand Jury
Article II Perjury in the Jones case
There was a trial, bucko, but yes, he was acquitted in the Senate.

Then, on April 12, 1999, Judge Susan Webber Wright held Clinton in contempt of court, ruling that he had "responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process..." For that he lost his law license for five years and paid a $25,000 fine. Hmm, no evidence of perjury there.

So now let's see your evidence that President Bush "LIED to the American People".


Oh, that's right...I see. It's just stretching the truth when Bush does it, but when Clinton is fucking TRIED, in the REPUBLICAN senate, and they can't get a conviction, it's all of a sudden God's Own Truth? He was NOT GUILTY of purjury, according to the Senate trial. Sounds to me like there's not sufficient evidence of it. And as for the misleading testimony thing, that's exactly what he did. He gave misleading testimony. Nowhere does that say purjury, and nowhere did I say that what Clinton did was NOT misleading. It was misleading. But to say that there is significant evidence of purjury is simply not the case, according to our political and legal systems.

[milroyj]

But to say that there is significant evidence of purjury is simply not the case, according to our political and legal systems.

That's where you're wrong. He was IMPEACHED over this. The House of Representatives, even under evil Republican control, does not sit around waiting to draw up Articles of Impeachment, without significant evidence!

From Websters: (you're in college, you do have a dictionary, don't you): perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath: false swearing

From Judge Wright's ruling: "responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process..."

I dunno, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like perjury to me, with contempt of court and obstruction of justice thrown in for good measure.

I didn't mean to get into the whole Clinton thing, but I find that getting your knickers in a bunch over President Bush's tax speech, to the point where you say he "LIED to the citizens of this country", ironic at best.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by milroyj
I didn't mean to get into the whole Clinton thing, but I find that getting your knickers in a bunch over President Bush's tax speech, to the point where you say he "LIED to the citizens of this country", ironic at best.

See, you're ignoring the fact that I have said that Clinton's misleading testimony was wrong. That's all fine and dandy. You're preaching to the choir. It WAS wrong. However, he has not been found guilty of perjury, even with a Republican Senate. In fact, he was found NOT GUILTY of perjury, by an "evil Republican" Senate. An indictment/impeachment does NOT make someone guilty. "Rule of law" and all that.

[Freedom]

Two things....

[1] Bush was talking about his TAX PLAN. The House and the Senate didn't give him everything he wanted.


[2] I have a feeling that you are having a little trouble with the math.

The government offered you two options.

1. File as an idependent, and you would get a $300 refund.

...or.....

2. You can file with your parents, forgo your $300 and you parents can save a couple of thousand bucks.



I gotta tell you....that Bush is such a fucking dick to mislead you like that:(

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Freedom
Two things....

[1] Bush was talking about his TAX PLAN. The House and the Senate didn't give him everything he wanted.

No, he very much was NOT. He was talking about the tax plan that passed. The one that is now law.

"What is especially significant about the tax relief passed by the United States House and Senate today...", means that the bill had already passed. That quote is taken verbatim from the speech that my other quote was from, and that I linked to on the first page of this thread. You can ignore cites all you want, but a lie is still a lie.


[2] I have a feeling that you are having a little trouble with the math.

The government offered you two options.

1. File as an idependent, and you would get a $300 refund.
...or.....
2. You can file with your parents, forgo your $300 and you parents can save a couple of thousand bucks.

I gotta tell you....that Bush is such a fucking dick to mislead you like that:(


Ok, once again, let me say this. I DON'T DESERVE A TAX REFUND. I DON'T WANT A TAX REFUND. I DON'T EXPECT A TAX REFUND. I DON'T NEED A TAX REFUND. There. It's in all caps. maybe this time you'll fucking read it. I am not complaining about the law, or the exception that doesn't let dependents recieve a tax break. I fully understand the logic. It makes sense.

Bush, however, said, quite clearly, that I, and millions of others, WOULD be recieving a check this summer, when, demonstrably, we will not. Perhaps he was lying. Perhaps he just had his head so far up his ass that he didn't even bother to READ the biggest piece of legislation passed during his administration (Far scarier that lying, btw). But the point is that the president advertised his cut as something that it was not. And that pisses the everloving fuck out of me.

[OxyMoron]

Originally posted by Flymaster
Bush, however, said, quite clearly, that I, and millions of others, WOULD be recieving a check this summer, when, demonstrably, we will not. Perhaps he was lying. Perhaps he just had his head so far up his ass that he didn't even bother to READ the biggest piece of legislation passed during his administration (Far scarier that lying, btw). But the point is that the president advertised his cut as something that it was not. And that pisses the everloving fuck out of me. [/B]

Ok, Flymaster, you've now demonstrated that you're OP amounted to little more than a pedantic whine. Try, please, to wrap your literal little mind around a couple of points:

(1) There are gradations of untruths. Bush's was of the most common and least interesting species: the exaggeration. In garden variety human-speak (let alone garden-variety politician-speak), "every single" is lucky to rise to level of "most." Here, he was off by several million people. The reality is that several million people doesn't matter much on the scale of 300 million. Yawn.

(2) Do you know how many people read an ominibus budget bill? The answer is...no one. Because they're usually in the realm of at least several hundred, and more often several thousand, pages long. You might be able to collect a group of 150 people who collectively might have read the entire document at some point in its gestation, but even that's unlikely. Is that a nice, scientific way of producing policy? Of course not. Does it matter? Not really. But apparently you've never heard the aphorism that those who like sausage and obey the law should never see either one being made.

(3) Grow up.

[OxyMoron]

(Of course, that should read "your OP...")

What was that I said about pedantry....?

(whistling away, looking at the clouds)

[Flymaster]

The president lies about his tax bill because, as you say, he might not have actually READ it, I call him on it, and I'm the one who has to grow up? Fuck you. He lied. I'm pissed. I'm not going to roll over and take it as the president lies to the public to make himself SOUND like he did things that he didn't do. Fuck him, and fuck you. I'm not going to "grow up," because I'm right.

[Tejota]

Originally posted by Anthracite
"It's my money, I earned it by working my motherfucking ass off


Which proves that you are not wealthy enough to be benefited by this tax cut. The truly wealth don't have to work their asses off, and very very few of them do.

The whole notion of "It's my money: I earned it" applies only to working class people. The idle rich have more money than they could possibly earn if you give that word it's usual meaning.

Just take a good look at the salaries of CEO's of large and mid-size corporations if you want to see an example of unearned income. The sad truth is that any reasonably intelligent person with basic math skills could do as good a job as most CEO's. Only a very few are actually good enough to justify their salaries, but even the failures are paid more than you or I.

tj

[Tejota]

Originally posted by milroyj
That's where you're wrong. He was IMPEACHED over this. The House of Representatives, even under evil Republican control, does not sit around waiting to draw up Articles of Impeachment, without significant evidence!


Funny, from where I stand that's precisely what they did.