This is the second time you have referred to Hebrew religious tradition to support your ethical views. Five minutes worth of research could show you that your understanding of it is facile, shallow, and self-serving.
The ancient Hebrews had a firm and unwavering standard of care for the poor and the obligation of those of wealth to share with the less fortunate. Indeed, it served as the basis for much the same sorts of obligations reflected in Christian and Islamic tradition.
I think I see the problem.
You think that you are carrying a really large tax burden and any more would be the camel’s straw. You aren’t paying lots and lots and being asked to pay lots and lots +1, you are currently paying historical average MINUS lots and lots and being asked to pay average MINUS lots and lots +1. You see, other than the George H.W. Bush and the last year of Reagan, you would have to go back to the Hoover administration to find taxes that are lower than they are today.
-continued
Now, JFK had the right idea when he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 90 to 70 (without incurring significant deficits) and Reagan’s first round of tax cuts were probably a good idea as well when he lowered them from 70 to 50 (he incurred some deficit but the rate of growth in the economy would probably have supported the rate of growth in the national debt). EVERY tax cut after that was superfluous and irresponsible until we got out fiscal house in order.
Tell you what, you convince congress to cut spending by a trillion dollars and I will stand right next to you trying to convince congress nto to raise taxes (at least until the economy recovers).
Still batting a perfect zero as far as what I’ve actually argued, which is not “I want my taxes lower” but “I don’t want my taxes next year higher.” You’re doing your side a real disservice.
The problem is “I don’t want my taxes next year higher.” doesn’t accurately describe the situation. This cut is supposed to expire. It was designed that way and that is what will happen unless another bill is passed to essentially create a new tax cut in the same amount that will be permanent. You are the one advocating new legislation here, not us, therefore the onus is on you to show how this will not negatively affect an already hurting economy. Remember that you are the one that wants an action taken, not us. We are not advocating raising your taxes. We are just not in favor of another tax cut when the previous one was so irresponsible considering that it was enacted while two wars were ongoing that were not being paid for on the budget.
So in case you still are not clear, this tax cut was wildly irresponsible when enacted. There was nothing adjusted in the budget to account for it and so since originally it was a very bad idea I don’t see how continuing this bad idea is somehow good all of a sudden.
Unless your view is so simplistic that all you can think about is your own pocketbook.
Nice try on just attacking me though. That really helps further the debate.
Sam Stone, unlike the twit who couldn’t even define the word rights, nor the shortbus kid who responded to a line of my post while editing out the vast majority that pre-empitively explained why he was wrong, I think you have given some thought to this. If you could make the part I bolded happen I would love you forever. I would write your mother fan mail for producing you even if you spat upon my face, because in order to do that you’d have to make what I want to happen, happen. Here’s why.
For the rich taxes diminishing personal wealth mean the difference between toys or shinier toys. Where as for the poor taxes diminishing personal wealth mean the difference between healthcare, food or heat. Now you might say something taxes also discouraging investing. That would be your MO, and I’ll grant you that, but the fact remains, taking money away from the poor is taking food right out of their mouths. You would have to put programs in place so that no one starves, no one has to sleep in the cold, no one has to suffer needlessly from lack of healthcare, and no one is stuck in their current spot from lack of financing for education in order for taxes to cause equal pain.
Do that and you can tax the poor however you want as far as I care. Their bellies will be full, they won’t be sleeping in the rain, dieing from preventable causes, and they can seek to better themselves.
Now here’s the thing. We already have a lot of programs that do those things. I know Canada does too. Food assistance, FAFSA, medicare, section 8, etc. but so many fall through the cracks.
Here’s what I’d like so that everyone gets equal access to benefits from the government and feels equal pain.
Universal food assistance. Everyone gets the same allotment of food stamps or something, with no restrictions on food items. This means if you’re richie rich you can use it to buy an once of caviar, but if your poor it’s your groceries for the month. It needn’t be much. I know from personal experiences a person, at least in SW Michigan, can live pretty comfortably on $200 worth of groceries they know where to shop. This means everyone gets the same monetary benefit from the program, but everyone eats regardless of class. Well what if you don’t like bulk cheese, and KD?
The next item is education. It’s vital. We have federal tuition assistance, I’d like to see it expanded to everyone. That way everyone gets the same benefit. If don’t like your KD you can go to school, become smarter, more productive and supplement your food allotment with better food. Also more vocational options. From threads I’ve seen here there apparently isn’t enough. The community college I go to however does also offer a lot of vocational programs. They’re structured as classes, but the actual course matter is vocational.
Shelter, if your poor you shouldn’t freeze. In order that everyone should get the same benefit, everyone should be entitled to a section 8 apartment. However the actual income based rent should be changed to nothing. If a section 8 isn’t to you’re liking, you’re free to get an education, find a better job, and get your own place. However even if you’re richie rich if a section 8 does the job to your satisfaction than you should have access to one.
Healthcare, everyone should get medicare/medicaid. If it isn’t good enough they can get additional insurance either through work or their own money, but at the very least everyone can sea a doctor, or get vital medication.
And little more, life’s basics should be guaranteed, but anything beyond those should be the carrot for increasingly gainful employment.
Finally all these equal benefits need to paid for somehow. Here’s where the equal pain comes in. Scrap a good chunk of the tax code, and replace it with a flat percentage based on the previous year’s bill. This means if the national budget was $5 trillion, and the total national income was $15 trillion then everyone the following year will be charged a 33% income tax, from the richest of the richest, down to the poorest of the poorest of the poor. This means the rich and poor a like have the shininess of their toys reduced by government spending.
Your scare quotes around “supposed” are quite accurate. The tax cuts were designed to expire to make the impact they had on the deficit seem less - the Republicans were convinced that no one could let them expire, the the whole exercise was dishonest. But Republicans lying is not a stop-the-presses news item, is it?
To get back to the question of taxes and investment, the radio today said that 80% of companies reporting quarterly results beat expectations. The Times yesterday had an article on how companies were increasing profitability by cutting back.
Now, you can only do this if you have a surplus of productive capacity over what is needed for the current market, and so it seems reasonable to say the that the management of these companies don’t see the need to invest in more production. With the good results coming in, it also seems reasonable to say that they have enough cash to invest if they needed to. So I think that those who say we should maintain tax cuts for the rich in order to have investment capital need to explain to us who is hurting for lack of capital (except perhaps for small businesses, who get money from banks, not the market.) DanBlather’s very useful chart shows the rich paying a smaller percentage of state taxes than the middle class, which is easily explained by the relatively smaller amount of sales taxes they pay.
BTW, the forecasts don’t look so hot, and consumer confidence is down, so the need for investment this quarter is even smaller than before.
As Obama stated, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Do you have the right to seek out an education? Absolutely. Must the government provide you with an education? Of course not. Same goes for healthcare.
When the Constitution was written, health care issues were vastly more simple, as mud and leeches were freely available, even to the poor.
I agree with you. My opinion is that everyone (or most) should pay into the system. Ideally, the percentage not paying into the system should be quite small. The problem arises when we approach a point where almost a majority of the country is paying ZERO federal income taxes. Nobody can blame people for voting in their own interests. Invariably, over time, those who are exempted from federal income taxes will not think twice about raising taxes on those paying into the system if this is required to keep their favored programs intact. There is no consequence for those who do not pay into the system so why should they care what the tax rates are for everyone else?
Understood, but what of those that have been mentioned in this ticket before like the stay at home mom, that doesn’t work outside of the home, or the senior citizen that doesn’t earn enough income to qualify for paying income taxes, or the HS student who just registered to vote at 18 but doesn’t yet work. Do they all have their voting rights stripped under your plan? How do you deal with those that are not in the category of freeloader, but also don’t pay income tax? Do they just owe anyway or something, or just not get to vote?
Your description of what happened and why is almost certainly quite accurate. But “lying?” Hey, the law said what it said. If they made a calculated gamble about human nature, it was up to those grown ups opposed to the grown ups who proposed it to make the argument against what they saw as effectively an untenable sunset provision and get a majority vote for that argument.
Similarly, if the Dem-controlled Congress this year does allow the sunset to go into effect, I will disagree with the tax policy, but I will not characterize it as based on lies or politically illegitimate.
Well that’s good because it wouldn’t be either of those things.
The original temporary tax cut plan on the other hand …
Was a law that had a sunset provision that the advocates hoped would be irresistable for the legislature to allow to take effect. And a majority of Congress voted for it with eyes wide open with the intent of (a) having it renewed; (b) having it not renewed; or (c) kicking the can down the road. Again, how is that less legitimate than what the Dems may, or may not, do this year? I don’t mean how is it less desirable from your or my POV. I mean how is it fairly characterized as based on “lies?”
This is hardly the first sunset provision type law. Some sunsets have been allowed to go into effect. Others have proven politically very hard not to renew. Unemployment benefits just got extended. Does this mean that the last time they were extended for X weeks it was a “lie” because pretty much everyone knew at the time that unless things dramatically turned around, there was a high likelihood that at the expiration of X weeks there’d be no political will for allowing them to lapse?
And why does the taxation have to be flat? There is STILL marginal utility of wealth even after the basic requirements of survival are met. The argument for progressivity in the tax system isn’t the fact that some people simply can’t pay taxes and eat at the same time.
tehre is nothing about a flat tax that is significantly simpler than a progressive tax system. You want to know where all the complexity of the tax system comes from? Its the caps, the phase outs and the AMT. Eliminate caps, why do we stop applying social security taxes after 100K? Are we trtying to hold on to the fiction that what you get out is in any way related to what you pay in? Eliminate all phase outs. Why should a rich person get any less of a deduction for their children than a poor person? Eliminate or at least reform the AMT. The problems that the AMT was meant to address have laready largely been addressed but if you think taht are still gaps in the code that really rich folks can slip through then keep it but adjust it for inflation (back to its inception). AMT which was supposed to hit the top 1% of Americans would now affect the middle class.
I would point out once again, federal income taxes are not the be all and end all of contributions to the system.
I think the point is that the Republicans are characterizing it as Democrats increasing taxes. Its not. Its Democrats not extending tax cuts.
No, he was specifically referring to the process of passing the original tax cuts, if you take a look at the specific post to which I responded.
No one ever promised that they wouldn’t try to renew them or that this would be the last time they’d argue for lower taxes.
I object to the tossed-off “lying” on the same serious grounds that I objected to the OP – it’s intellectually lazy name-calling of a type that became way too popular on the Left when they had the generally-misguided GWB as their favorite dog to kick.
I don’t seriously think the franchise is going to be taken away from those who don’t pay tax, and nothing I’ve posted suggests that I oppose in principle all tax, a progressive income tax, or even a progressive income tax that costs me a lot of money.
The OP on the other hand seems serious in positing that nothing other than “evil” or “stupidity” can explain resistance to increasing the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.6%
Really? That strikes me as the most extreme and unworthy view in this whole post.