If Obama's tax plan is socialist, then why isn't McCains?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

McCain’s tax plan is socialist, too. Just not as much, which is why I reluctantly support him.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Rubystreak]

@jtgain

So, the Bush tax cuts were the only economic event in the past 8 years?

Oh, yeah, THAT’S what I said. Bush tax cuts, only economic event. :rolleyes: This is a thread about taxation, and we WERE talking about how Obama’s tax cuts were supposedly going to mess with my ability to get a raise, etc. I think you are the one giving taxes on the rich far too much credit as something that will alter the economy in a negative way. Obviously the Bush tax plan did not do great wonders for our economy, nor did his other economic policies. If you’re trying to say that Obama’s will be worse because of this bugaboo of socialism, you’re not very convincing.

[Ludovic]

@jtgain

Tax cuts ALWAYS help the economy. They may increase the deficit without proper government discipline, but any type of tax cut will always help the economy.

Fine, let’s cut the tax rate to zero. I’ll be in my bunker awaiting the biker gangs while salivating over my enormous bundle of worthless dollars (worthless because trade is so disrupted by crime no one wants to go out to do any deals.)

[Fubaya]

@jtgain

… the Bush tax cuts were across the board cuts for everyone. And since the rich already pay more, it is obvious that they would get more of the benefit.

Not exactly. The Congressional Budget Office found that the rich received a higher cut in their tax rate than everyone else. And that’s before the cuts in capital gains and investments.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Fubaya

Not exactly. The Congressional Budget Office found that the rich received a higher cut in their tax rate than everyone else. And that’s before the cuts in capital gains and investments.

Here’s another link, presumably where they got the same data. 7th table down.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

I’m trying to understand where the NYTimes piece is going here. For simplicity’s sake, let’s compare 2001 vs 2004 for the top 1% (the rich) and the top 26%-50% (the middle class)

From 2001 to 2004, top 1% average rate dropped from 14.23% to 12.10%
From 2001 to 2004, top 26-50% average rate dropped from 8.91% to 7.01%

And since the top 1% make far more money, on average, than the top 26-50%, some idiot can multiple the tax rate decrease by the average dollar amount earned and claim that the Bush tax cuts ‘gave more money’ to the rich.

This is ludicrous. First off, it sort-of assumes there was a static pot of money the government owned already (not its citizens) and it ‘gave’ it back to the rich.

Of course, it’s the other way around. The government actually TOOK more money from the rich, since their incomes increased faster. The top 1% contributed more actual dollars, and a greater % overall, after the Bush tax cuts than the top 26-50%. Those data are also available in Table 5 of my link.

Just the sort of hard-hitting analysis I’ve come to expect from the NYTimes.

[sjc]

@Rand_Rover

A couple of points Shayna.

3. Roosevelt spoke in terms of higher tax rates on large fortunes, which may indicate that he favored progressivity only (or mostly) at a point on the income scale way higher than 250k per year.

In Roosevelt’s time 250k per year was really rich. Silly point, I know, but still…

[Rand_Rover]

@sjc

In Roosevelt’s time 250k per year was really rich. Silly point, I know, but still…

I assumed anyone reading my remarks would realize that that number should be adjusted for inflation.