Comparing Tax cuts. Bush vs Gore

Great Debates
21

Bad-Mojo: I really have a hard time understanding why liberals seem to think it’s such a bad thing for me to keep more of the money I’ve worked for. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see Government redistribution of wealth as a good thing.

Mojo, that sounds like such a tremendously naive question it’s hard for me to believe that you meant it seriously. But in case you did, here’s my attempt at an answer for you:

Liberals, of course, don’t have any universal consensus about how much of “your” income you should “keep”. (I put those words in quote marks not because I think that the money isn’t legally yours—of course it is, and I am bitterly opposed to anyone’s illegally taking it from you—but to point up the fact that the amount of money you get from your work, and the security with which you can expect to keep it, are directly related to the conditions of the society you live in. Many anti-tax people are naive about this, I’ve noticed: they seem to think that the only role government plays with respect to “their” money is in taking it away from them via taxes. Honey, if it weren’t for the tax-funded governmental structures that work to protect fairness and the rule of law, where would “your” money be? In some bigger guy’s pocket, that’s where, and they wouldn’t limit themselves to taking less than 40%, either.)

So liberals have many different views on how much citizens should be taxed and according to what system. But I think it’s fair to say that all liberals support some taxation, most often according to some kind of progressive tax scale, because they believe that this is the proper way to obtain the necessary funds to carry out the necessary duties of government.

In this, I may point out, liberals are backed up by the wording of the United States Constitution. The Preamble to that document declares the necessary duties of the US government to be the following:

None of this is free, and none of it comes particularly cheap, even. The framers of the Constitution, having more sense than the average anti-tax griper, recognized this very clearly, and so they stated (Article I, section 8) the means by which it was to be paid for:

So, unless you want to change the Constitution, you are essentially stuck with the basic necessity of having some taxation in order to pay for what the government does.

Even most anti-tax types, if pushed to the wall, will acknowledge this. But they then say that what they object to is the high level of taxation (which, of course, is the lowest among similarly developed nations) or “Government redistribution of wealth” or some such thing.

First of all, I don’t know any liberals who advocate real egalitarianism of wealth. No liberals are out there proposing that all the money should be handed out equally so that we all get exactly $41,347.83 per year, or anything like that. The “redistribution” that they support is quite limited, and still allows for some individuals to have incomes a hundred million times or more greater than others.

Why liberals support any redistribution at all is simply because they believe that our mandate to “insure domestic tranquillity,” “promote the general welfare,” and “secure the blessings of liberty” includes making sure that citizens do not have to go without things like food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education simply because they can’t afford the current market price of these commodities. Liberals believe that a society is better off when all people have access to these basic amenities of life, and that it’s reasonable to use tax revenues to provide them.

There’s also a certain amount of fiscal pragmatism involved in the liberal attitude: they think that in the long run, providing access for all to these amenities is apt to be cheaper than just letting markets operate in a regulatory vacuum to provide them, or fail to provide them, as the case may be. As I pointed out in another thread, you may bitch about having to contribute FICA taxes in order to help support the retirement of a maid or janitor who didn’t save enough to retire on—but in the long run, you would probably find it a lot more expensive if maids and janitors required salaries high enough for them to pay for their own retirements. (Of course, the really economical way to handle this is to pay maids and janitors, and anybody else low down on the power scale, as little as possible and then let them starve in the streets when they’re too old to work; but liberals tend to have philosophical objections to this approach.)

And that is why liberals often support the position that seems so perversely incomprehensible to you, namely, that your taxes (and those of the liberals themselves, I might add) should not be cut. The issue for liberals, you see, is not just that all our individual incomes are legally our property and we want them to be as big as possible, but that we also all have a civic duty to help carry out the responsibilities mandated in the Constitution. If it’s too expensive to carry out those responsibilities and cut taxes, then the tax cut takes second place.

I hope that clears the matter up for you somewhat, Mojo.

22

Yeah the goverment really needs that income tax, especially when there wasent even a income tax.

23

> The “redistribution” that they support is quite limited

If you consider taking half our income to be “quite limited”.
> liberals are backed up by the wording of the United States Constitution

Perhaps you should read the part about enumerated powers. If the Constitution were actually followed, the federal government would be about 1/10 its current size.
> Now Bushes 'cuts" help only the rich

I guess to you anyone who currently pays taxes is “rich” then. Lower-income people get a huge tax cut under his plan, which you can see for yourself at
http://georgewbush.com/TaxCalculator.asp

24

Since when do the really big rich ever pay their taxes anyways? Without hiring some fancy accountant to find loopholes…

Okay, I’m not up on economics and it’s not my best subject, but…
If they’re going to CUT taxes then they’d have to CUT spending…that’s what happened here in Allegheny county…the commissioners voted to cut taxes but they raised spending…as a result, they had to cut funding down to a lot of places…(one of them being my community college at the time…grrr…which was really shitty when you consider the head commissioner was a CCAC ALUMNI!-the greedy bastard!)

25

Nice post, Kimstu. This is a hijack, but it’s indicative of the perils of a hardline anti-tax attitude: In today’s Oregonian, there’s an article indicating public support for ballot measure 41 in this fall’s state election. Measure 41 is the latest progeny of tax-cut ideologue Bill Sizemore. Sizemore was responsible for Measure 5 in the early 90’s, an initiative which cut property taxes with grave consequences for the state’s school system. Since then, he’s attempted to pass numerous ballot measures cutting state taxes (Oregon, by the way, is one of the only states in the union without a sales tax). His other major victory came two years ago when the voters approved an initiative which required that any bond measure or tax base achieve fifty percent voter turnout in order to pass, regardless of the results of the election, a so-called “double majority” rule. This has led to the failure of many city and county services around the state, such as the renewal of school budgets or public transportation funding. Now he’s at it again, and the results could be even more dire.

Measure 41 allows state residents to claim unlimited deductions for federal taxes on their state returns–currently there’s a maximum of $3,000 that can be deducted. In other words, if the measure passes, people won’t have to pay state taxes anymore. This, in turn, would likely cut state revenue by $1 billion a year. Bye bye, funding.

The really sickening part is that the measure disproportionately benefits only high-income taxpayers. The Oregonian says this:

But right now it’s being favored by lower-income households, and a good portion (35 percent) of self-identified liberals have also said that they’d approve the measure. It’s pretty clear to me that most people in favor of Measure 41 don’t understand two things: the small degree to which they themselves will be helped by the measure, and the real depth and breadth of services provided by state tax dollars. If Measure 41 passes, it will be absolutely devastating to the schools and the infrastructure. It will also likely force the issue of a state sales tax, when repercussions of the loss of revenue begin to be felt. And, of course, many people will oppose the sales tax, too.

I dunno. I’m afraid most people in November will look at the ballot and say “No more state income tax! Who wouldn’t want that?” without thinking about the consequences. Perhaps a concerted campaign can educate enough voters to turn this thing around. Me, I’m kinda glad I’m getting out of this state when I am.

Sorry for the digression; it’s relatively relevant. Thoughts?

26

TampaFlyer mostly replied to me:

> The “redistribution” that they support is quite limited
*If you consider taking half our income to be “quite limited”. *

As I made clear in the post, TF, the redistribution is “limited” in the sense that it permits massive income inequalities to remain (and liberals in general do not oppose that): i.e., the redistribution is limited because there’s lots of money that does not actually get redistributed. Whether the tax rate, on the other hand, is insufficiently “limited” is a different question.

> liberals are backed up by the wording of the United States Constitution

*Perhaps you should read the part about enumerated powers. If the Constitution were actually followed, the federal government would be about 1/10 its current size. *

Perhaps you should read my post. What I said there was that “in this, liberals are backed up by the […] Constitution”, “this” referring to their support for the existence of any taxation at all. Whether the current amount of taxation is in line with what the framers intended is, again, a different question.

> Now Bushes 'cuts" help only the rich

Just in case TF’s conglomeration of uncited quotes is confusing anybody, I was not the person who posted this remark and I’m not interested in TF’s comments on it.

27

TampaFlyer:

Unfortunately, Dubya’s tax calculator ain’t exactly, um, the most reliable thing in the world. See here for a wee critique of it.

28

Perhaps you should read the part about enumerated powers. If the Constitution were actually followed, the federal government would be about 1/10 its current size.

If everything was followed by the original version of the Constitution, women wouldn’t be able to vote and blacks would still be slaves.
The thing is, people want the BENEFITS that the state gives us, without having to pay for them. Guess what? You can’t something for nothing?

You like having nice, smooth roads? Garbage pick up? Schools? Traffic lights? Police to help you when something goes wrong? Fire fighters?

You mean we have to PAY for that!
How awful!

29

Kimstu, very nicely phrased, and very reasonable. If we must have liberals (that is what Liberal means today) I wish they were all as reasonable as you…

Several points:
I personally would say that I am not anti-tax per se, but rather anti waste, and the ridiculous size of the various Governments today. Although I understand the need for some authority in our society only two well. Yes, we all benefit from the things you have listed above, such as a defence of our nation, general welfare, and established justice. And I will agree that we have responcibilities beyond those of collecting our pay and spending it. But to say that the current tax system is somehow fair comical. Those who are truly rich can hide their income while the guy who lives check to check sees less of his pay each year. How is this fair? Tell me about the services the guy receives for 40% of his pay.

Also, promoting the General Welfare does not mean paying for it. Access to something and a guarantee of receiving it are two different things. I think you’ll have to agree that the opportunity to get a job and the assurance of having a job are two different things.

But thank you for a very nice post.

30

Let’s get serious here. There are a lot of government “services” that can get completely canned. A public funded anti-smoking campaign while subsidizing tobacco growers is called hyperpluralism. Why not just let me keep my contribution to both sides? There is a lot of worthless government chaff that I’d prefer not to fund. I’m not anti tax, as I do believe in the value of the common defense. I believe in civic services such as Fire, Police, etc. I have no problem funding these things, however I feel our current taxation is excessive.

31

Mojo: Would you support the Oregon measure I described above?

32

tradesilicon: *But to say that the current tax system is somehow fair is comical. Those who are truly rich can hide their income while the guy who lives check to check sees less of his pay each year. How is this fair? *

Lordy, I never said it was, and I don’t think most other liberals would either! Too often, “income redistribution” nowadays means money going from the middle classes to the rich.

*But thank you for a very nice post. *

Thank you, dear: if we have to have non-liberals, I wish they were all as reasonable as you! :slight_smile:

Bad-Mojo: *I’m not anti tax, as I do believe in the value of the common defense. I believe in civic services such as Fire, Police, etc. I have no problem funding these things, however I feel our current taxation is excessive. *

And that’s a perfectly reasonable position. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to feel that the constitutional mandate involves providing other civic services (not, in the opinion of most of us, including tobacco subsidies) as well, so that’s why liberals tend to favor higher taxes than you do. It isn’t really because we just like taking money away from you. :slight_smile:

33

Guinastasia:

All the time. It’s nice to believe otherwise, but the fact is that a very, very small percentage of the population, something like the top 8%, contributes 80% of the tax revenue. Not only that, but they employ many of the people who pay the other 20%, so it’s arguable that they’re paying that, too.

Unfortunately, it’s simply inconceivable in modern America that any of those things could be provided to you by any entity other than the Federal Government. How sad.

34

True, very true. But as Locke said,
“Government has no rights, only responsibilities”…
So I guess, what’s the point of a government that can’t provide?

35

'Course, Phil, it’s also true that something like five percent of the population holds ninety percent of the wealth–much of it taxed at a far lesser rate than income, through capital gains–so you can draw your own conclusions.

And yeah, we don’t have a problem with creative accounting and corporate tax shelters in this country at all… :rolleyes:

36

pldennison replied to Guinastasia: *“You like having nice, smooth roads? Garbage pick up? Schools? Traffic lights? Police to help you when something goes wrong? Fire fighters?”

Unfortunately, it’s simply inconceivable in modern America that any of those things could be provided to you by any entity other than the Federal Government. How sad.*

Huh? Most of “those things” that Guina mentioned are provided, wholly or partly, by state or local governments, often via private contractors. And what on earth is “sad” about having government provide these things? That’s why we instituted the governments in the first place. You libertarians are too much: when our governments don’t do what we want them to do, you say that that proves the current system can’t work, and when our governments do do what we want them to do, you say that that proves we’re wretched mind-slaves of the current system. We can’t win! :slight_smile:

37

I did, and they didn’t.

I thought of people who lived down in SW VA, where I lived for several years. I asked Bush’s tax calculator how much tax savings the following family would realize: a family of four, making $22,000 a year, with the wife making 25% of the income.

Answer: Not a penny.

I thought I’d ask it how much someone earning a million bucks a year would benefit from Shrub’s tax cut, but the calculator doesn’t allow you to input values over $100,000.

Since conservative tax cut proposals tend to be biased toward the rich, I think that constitutes something less than full disclosure on the part of the Bush campaign.

38

Southern, could you provide a quote from the article we can’t see? (And date and starting page of the article, if possible; that way we could go to the library and read it ourselves if we’re sufficiently interested.) I don’t trust the Journal very far, I’m afraid, and I’m curious about the wording of the statement.

As you describe it, the statement’s false, since income taxes aren’t our only taxes.

But my main point is still: do we know we can afford any tax cut at all, yet?

39

The bit about “only the rich get a (significant) tax cut” was me. Yes, under the Bush plan as written, families who do not itemize, ie those who do not own a home, will get a cut, even if low middle class. But, these 'cuts" are pure “vaporware”, and are as likely to happen as the abolishment of the IRS that the GOP was calling for a while ago. The demos tried to put those Bush tax cuts actually up for vote, but the Repubs nixed it. When i see them actually PASS a 'cut" (even tho it may be vetoed), then I will consider it a real possibility. They passed 3 ‘cuts"- cutting of the top rate (rich only), cutting out the estate tax (Filthy rich only) and giving an extra deduction to married couples, which would help those who do not itemize a lot. Now that last, would cut some taxes for some wagearners, very true, but it also doubled the benefit of being a “one earner” “GOP Traditional” family, which was unnessesary. Hey, the GOP also called for the elimination of the EITC, which would have MASSIVLY increased the "taxes’ for the lowest wagearners, and especially single moms. But don’t worry about that, they had no intention of that actually getting into law.

Hey, “Money talks, and Bullshit walks”, and there is a very long hike ahead for BOTH tax “plans”.

Yes, the Federal Govt did not have an Income tax for the 1st 100 years+. But we had very high tariffs, which would amount to trade warfare nowadays, and a very high tax on booze, which if translated into todays $$, would have whiskey (cheap) about $50 a fifth. The States had higher taxes (income) in proportion, and paid for many of the things the Feds do nowadays.

40

Gadarene:

That’s terrific. It has nothing to do with what I said, but it’s terrific nevertheless. I said it’s patently untrue that the rich don’t pay any taxes, and I’m correct. Feel free to argue with yourself over wealth distribution, though. If you’re taking the tack that the people with the most money should pay the most taxes, well, duh. They do. I’m of the opinion that the tax rate isn’t the issue here–the rate is where the bulk of the revenue comes from. It comes from the wealthy.

Gee, I didn’t say that either. You should do something about those invisible people with whom you have a propensity for arguing. Guinastasia said the rich don’t pay any taxes, I corrected her. Sheesh.
Kimstu:

Yeah, yeah, I know. We can expand the principle to include government at all levels, if you like.

Are you and Gad practicing “Not Reading What People Say, But What I Wish They Had Said” skills today? I said: “Unfortunately, it’s simply inconceivable in modern America that any of those things could be provided to you by any entity other than the Federal [and state and local] Government.” See, there’s nothing wrong with it if that’s what everybody wants. As it happens, not everybody does want that. Of course, we all know that the opinions of those people are irrelevant, simply because they are unpopular.

Whatever.