http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/1883072
Give me a break. This is so wrong. Here they are talking about giving tax breaks to the rich while putting the screws to the working family.
Is this the face the republicans want to wear?
Class-conflict politics… again. :rolleyes:
Oo ooooo oooo, let me speak up for the republicans:
"Well, all I know is that I pay too much taxes. grumble gurmble bitch bitch. Bush is the best president because he paid me $300 dollars. Them DemoRats…gumble grumble…”
[/sarcasim]
Hey, Bush is a hero, man!
[sub]Warning: has sound.[/sub]
Okay, see, what no one seems to get is that if all the pork was done away with, we could have tax cuts and a surplus!
Not that “class war” crapuccino again! The “class war” is over! They won. We lost.
Well, proving that I qualify for a dividend tax cut is quite burdensome too. That’s why my accountant does it for me.
So why not just have the working poor peoples’ accountants do the same for them?
Yeah, Reeder, you’ve clearly missed the memos coming on from down On High in the Bush Administration. Who gets what in the tax cut is just not the sort of thing one talks about in polite company! Effectively waging class warfare (by regressive tax cut polices) is good…But, for heaven’s sake, we’re not supposed to talk about.
Get with the program!
I think we all get that. The problem (in extremely simplified form) is that the people who can most influence their Congressperson to stop pork barrel projects are the ones who benefit most from that Congressperson’s pork barrel projects (i.e. his/her constituents). And, of course, any Congressperson who votes against pork barrel projects in other districts will find that not only do their own pork barrel projects not get funded, but neither will genuinely necessary projects in their district.
If you’ve got a means of changing that, I’d love to hear it. Because Congress aren’t likely to do it out of the goodness of their hearts, alas.
Why don’t you tell that to your own Congressperson (a Republican, by the way):
One man’s pork is another man’s meat and potatoes.
Oh my God! How dare the gov’t ask for such hard-to-provide information? :rolleyes:
Brutus…just how do you prove a child lived with you for more than six months?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you send me a copy of your birth certificate, since you don’t mind handing it off to other perfect strangers at the IRS?
So, can I assume you have your Lithuanian great-great gramma’s marriage license handy, Brutus?
What? You say her home town and records were destroyed in WWII? Tough titty. Tax credit Denied! Filthy tax-cheating piker.
<ding!> Next!
Although, on a more serious note, I can’t tell from the story if the IRS is truly demanding an unreasonable amount of documentation, or they are just taking ‘reasonable’ precautions against fraud. The story has so much spin and so little information, there’s little to go on.
Apparently, the conservatives now regard any attempt by the middle class and the poor to get their pants up from around their ankles and to get off the barrel as “class warfare.”
:rolleyes:
Marry me.
Enforcing taxes on the poor and cutting the taxes of the rich might seem like a real mean thing, but it may be economically beneficial. Taxes are most efficient when they reach an ideal point, let’s say 50%. So, by raising the taxes of the poor so it approaches 50%, and cutting the taxes of the rich to approach 50%, the government can maximize its resources. You’ll find this hypothesis in most basic economics textbooks. While not universally supported, it is nonetheless a key idea for many economists.
UnuMondo
And while you’re at it, why don’t you send me the back-taxes you owe, since you don’t mind sending it off to perfect strangers at the IRS?
See how stupid that sounded? Right.
Why don’t the lot of you take a deep breath, relax, and try to come up with a hypothetical situation in which tax credits would be denied because a person couldn’t prove their great-great-grannies’ wedding. You can’? Huh! Go figure…
Sorry, UnoMondo, but I am going to make you give us a cite for this because I don’t believe it. I think what you are thinking of vaguely is the Laffer Curve which posits that if you plot government revenue vs. tax rate then the curve has a peak because if taxes get very high, it drags down the economy so that higher taxation does not lead to higher growth.
However, even if one buys into the Laffer curve, you are taking it to new limits that it was never meant to go. I.e., the fact that one plots revenue vs. just one tax rate is simply a simplification because it is hard to plot in an infinite dimensional space of all possible tax policies and rates for all incomes. It does not follow that there is an optimal rate that everyone should be taxed at. You are reading way too much into it.