Why are Republicans pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Great Debates
381

A couple of things. 50% of the population does not pay 100% of the taxes. In fact 50% of the population doesn’t even pay 100% of the Federal income taxes (in case you think payroll taxes don’t count).

Ask anyone who makes $40,00/year (or even $25,000/year without children) and they will all tell you taht they pay income taxes. It may not be as much as you pay but that is the nature of a progressive income tax.

The only way you can come up with the 50% number is if you NET the negative taxes that the bottom 20% pays against the taxes paid by the next 30%. In other words, things like the earned income tax credit allow you to receive tax refunds that exceeds the taxes you paid in the first place.

So yes, if you NET the tax payments and tax receipts of the bottom 50% you get something close to zero (its about 3% of all tax receipts) but it is misleading to say that 50% of households pay 100% of the tax (or federal income tax) because over 80% of American households pay a federal income tax.

Come to think of it 3% paid on a net basis by the bottom 50% is still more than nothing.

What part of PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT don’t YOU understand. Didn’t you say that government doesn’t give you rights. Of course they do.

That is correct, the right springs into existence when you reach 18. At that point the state cannot arbitrarily take away your right to vote, even if you are so poor that you don’t pay federal income taxes.

So if I come and take your car, the government will not take it back from me and give it back to you? Even the most libertarian folks I know understand taht government is necessary to protect property rights. Rights that don’t exist in an anarchy. Your definition fo rights is too narrow even for your own purposes.

Or are you saying that your property rights come from God and teh government only protect those rights? If the government is the only way you can enforce your proerty rights then what is the functional difference between getting your property rights from the government and getting those rights from God?

I don’t think you are allowed to call me a liar (unless you have some other reading of the words "deliberate misdirection ") but let me quote your words back to you:

"I’ve already covered both of these. You cannot force a person to work for another. This is not a right but slavery. If people CHOOSE not to provide you with what you belive is a right, can the government force them to do the work at gunpoint? "

This is in the context of public education and universal healthcare.
What exactly did you mean when you said that I cannot force people to work for another? Weren’t you suggesting that I was stealing from you by taxing you to pay for the public education system and the universal health care system? Or did you simply mean to say that taxation is slavery rather than theft?

And yes the government can in fact force you to pay taxes at gunpoint. That doesn’t make it theft or even slavery.

Our children have a right to a public education paid for by everyone (including you) and pretty soon everyone will have a right to healthcare paid for by everyone (including you).

It was a property right that was enforced by the federal government even in free states (see Dredd Scott).

No everyone has the facts and I have presented them. Lets not forget TARP was passed under Bush, the first stimulus was passed under Bush, the secodn stimulus and health care reform were all pretty clearly advertised elements of the Obama campaign. And YET they still elected him. In fact some people might say that is WHY they elected him. And now that we have been pulled out of the ditch, some people are griping about the towing fee because driving into the ditch bent our axle and we aren’t moving as fast as we were when we drove into the ditch.

I’m not saying the econopmy is the ONLY thing the country is worried about but I am saying that if the economy wasn’t sucking so bad, there would be no chance of a flip in the house or senate. What idiotic economy worsening ideado youb think the President and Cngress have?

[/quote]

Are you saying that people only voted for the IDEA health care reform and a second stimulus package? That in november of 2008 when everyone was talking about the possibility of a second Great Depression, they were really only enamored with the IDEA of a second stimulus package, they didn’t actually want one? They were only interested in health care reform as an idea? PUHLEASE.

Once again, do you think there was any chance of a turnover in the House or the Senate without a crappy economy? Of course not.

382

At any point in time, the nation’s wealth is finite. That is why the term wealth distribution exists.

383

In the Washington Metropolitan Area the median household income for a family of 4 was $102k in 2009 (cite: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/housing/hpp/CPHDHousingHppHsgData.aspx#income).

Wikipedia claims somewhere between 12.2% (NoVa) and 8.2% (Washington) of the households make over $200k. I have not been able to verify this with census data yet.

Lots of people think they are “middle class” when they decidedly aren’t.

384

So I suppose you voted for Gore and Kerry? And while the GOP may not be more guilty of irresponsible spending, they are more guilty for irresponsible tax cuts.

Or raise taxes. You do realize taht just because you want increased taxes off the table doesn’t mean that anyone is going to take themm off the table right?

You know you van entirely eliminate your exposure to this junk investment by leaving and going somewhere else right? Don’t forget to leave everything you made here (that you wouldn’t have been able to make in your new home) with immigration on your way out.

385

I think I would like mroe information on who these folks at the DoT are. If they are mostly engineers and scientists then I don’t really have a problem. Working for the government is not a vow of poverty.

I think you need a little perspective on where our tax dollars go.

I live in DC, many of my freinds work for the government. Every last one of them would make more money in the private sector. They all took pay cuts to work in government. The private sector here has fared better than places like Ohio but a lot of people got laid off around here.

I will agree that it seem impossible to get fired when you work for the government but the way it was explained to me is that this is ebcause of safeguards that are in place to prevent among other things the politicization of the bureaucracy.

Once again, salaries are a tiny itty bitty peice of the federal budget.

386

Because even if you elimiated EVERY Federal agency, just the entitlements and military spending would put us in the hole. We can’t cut our way out of this deficit, we can’t grow our way out of this deficit, and we can’t tax our way out of this deficit. We will need ALL three eventually but cutting spending during a shaky recovery has to be done very very carefully.

387

What?!?!?!

The median family income in any of the counties around DC are about 100K. What exactly is your definition of middle class? Noone is impressed with your welth if you make 250K but you are not decidedly middle class, you are decidedly well off. I make about that and I may not feel “rich” but I make at least as much as most doctors or lawyers. Or do you think doctors and lawyers are decidedly middle class? To be fair, there are a LOT of lawyers and PhDs around here.

388

Of course you can create more welath. The left doesn’t have a problem with that notion. The left has difficulty with the notion that the market distributes the wealth in a way that concentrates wealth the way it does. Do you honestly think that CEO’s today are worth ten times what CEOs were worth in the 1960’s relative to what their employees were paid?

[/quote]

We get to elect those 535 dimwits. The free market dynamic is… different. The free market is usually pretty good at pricing things (as recent events show, this is not always the case), it is good at producing wealth, it is not so good at allocating that wealth among the stakeholders.

389

Keep the conversation civil.

[ /Modding ]

390

Keep in mind, the guys who slither to the top of the greasy pole have one reliable talent: they are, provably, adept at “office politics”. Now, if you are the kind of person who likes people who are good at office politics, respects and admires the skill set thereof…you should vote Republican.

391

The health care bill. It affects the same group of taxpayers as would Obama’s plan to expire just a part of Bush’s cuts. The tax increase is pretty significant and since it’s the law, it cannot be ignored when talking about expiring Bush’s tax cuts. For example, it increased the Medicare payroll tax paid by these taxpayers only. It created a 3.8% tax on income from investments and from home sales (if it generated over $250,000 in profit for individuals or if it is not a primary residence, not indexed for inflation, I believe). All this comes as states are also often looking at high-income taxpayers to pay for their deficits.

392

Yes, the Republicans were fiscally irresponsible by not just not cutting spending, but increasing it. It doesn’t mean that the Democrats get should a free pass. Also, in constant dollars, the federal government revenues before the recession (2006 and 2007) were in fact greater than the government revenues before the tax cuts (2000 or any other year before then). Even in 2009, the government revenues were greater than in any year before 1998 (also adjusted for inflation).

393

No, it doesn’t. What it does mean is that we are reasonable if we regard Republican claims of fiscal prudence and responsibility with, ah, skepticism.

394

I’m not especially bothered by air traffic controllers making on average $170,000. Seems like they earn it, and I’d rather keep good air traffic controllers doing their job.

The big jump in the numbers appears to be due to the result of a resolution in contract negotiations. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?contentKey=4048

It also seems like complaining about this as “Transportation Department employees” is somewhat misleading - a somewhat deceitful attempt to raise the “WTF” factor moreso than saying air traffic controllers had a contract negotiation resolution that yielded an average salary of about $170K.

Does it really seem to you that air traffic controllers shouldn’t make that much?

395

You are correct. 47% of the population does not pay any federal income taxes. The point I was making in the comment you quoted is, as I have stated before, that we are approaching half of the population that pays zero federal income tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444

I found this part very interesting:

The part that, just because something is provided by the government, it is somehow a right. Welfare is provided by the government at no cost to the recipient also. Does that make welfare a right?

I think I see your problem. This is very similar to debates on equality. Some think equality is defined by outcome instead of opportunity. You see a right, incorrectly, as something that must be GIVEN to you by your benevolent overlords in the the government. I see rights as protecting me from my government. So, for you, the right to an attorney means that the government MUST provide you with one. But, as I’ve already shown, this is not the case. The right to an attorney means the government cannot stop you from seeking advice from an attorney.

The “right” to health care (whatever that means) means, to you, that the government MUST provide you with health care. So, must the federal government also provide me with a gun? Property? How about a TV or newspaper subscription so I can get me some of that freedom of the press?

Nonsense. As I’ve already stated, as a matter of fact, voting is a privelege extended by the states.

Aren’t you confusing State government (or even city government) with the federal government? I can guarantee you that if I steal your car the feds are not going to be looking for me…unless I violate your civil rights in the process.

At any rate, propery rights are natural rights…not some right that is handed out by the government. Yes, we task our governments to protect our property but this is not the equivalent of saying our government gives us the right to own something.

A misdirection is not a lie. My point was clear and had nothing to do with taxation. IF the state determines that medical care is a “right” AND health care workers decide not to do their work, then how can your rights be preserved. The government would have to force people to work for you. That’s slavery.

Yes, you are making my point for me. As I stated upthread, slavery was a bastardization of property rights. Slavery itself was not a right.

I love all these metaphors for “Recovery”. Usually presented without a shred of evidence that anything done by this administration has helped the economy. Usually the typical respone is "well it would have been much worse without (insert pet Obama reform here).

Yeah…that’s pretty much what I’m saying. “Stimulus” sounds great until you realize it is just a bunch of wasted money on numerous pet projects of the left. “Health care reform” sounds wonderful until people see the price tag or federal funds used for abortions.

Of course. The party in power usually loses seats in the midterms. Independents are fleeing from Obama for a number of reasons including the economy. The far left is pissed that he has not done enough, or has done too much for his “corporate overloards” and will probably stay home on election day. The right is energized by just how far left this president is trying to take the country and will be waiting to pull any lever against Obama’s policies.

396

I’d still want to know wtf is going on. For example I can tell you that a significant number of folks at the NIH make more than $150K but they are research scientists and medical doctors, the best in their field, etc.

I can see how you would want this explained but as someone who makes more than $170K/year, are you saying you honestly can’t figure out how 1700 people can be making more than 170K? I’ll reserve judgment but 1700 of them sounds like a lot.

I live in DC. There have been a lot of layoffs around here. It hasn’t been as bad as most places but its been noticable and everyone feels uncertain about their job, even government employees.

As for the much vaunted government job security. Let me start by saying that it is in place for some practical and some administrative reasons. Administratively, you don’t want to politicize the bureaucracy by making the job of tax collector or environmental regulator a position subject to political pressures. (see Nixon and the enemies list).

As a practical matter almost everyone I know in government would make more in the private sector. In fact, the more they make, the larger the disparity with the private sector. They work in government for many reasons, lifestyle, sense of patriotism, benefits and yes job security.

The government revenue you are talking about is BELOW the federal estimate of what would have been collected if the Bush tax cuts had NOT taken place. Tax cuts don’t increase the federal revenue. No serious economist believes that the tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue over what they would have been without the tax cuts. Everyone from the CBO to President Bush’s chief economist on his council of economic advisors believes that.

No that sounds reasonable. I had forgotten about air traffic controllers. BTW I also noted that the 170K includes benefits.

397

I understand exactly what you mean. I agree what you call rights are in fact rights. The right to freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc. I am saying that your definition of rights is limited to "thing the government cannot do or cannot stop you from doing.

Does the right to bear arms equal the right to have guns provided to you?

In the opposite manner the right to have health care provided to you is not the same as the right to get health care for yourself.

You have adopted a narrow definition of rights and now you are trying to get everyone to adopt that definition.

Here is the wiki article on rights:

My definition of rights includes entitlements, things you have a right to.

Yes it is a right given to you by the states.

I thought you said the government can’t give you rights. Did you mean the federal government can’t give you rights but the state and local governments can?

So you think property rights are “god given” they are natural rights, right? Then unless you all rights are natural rights you must think that some rights are legal rights GIVEN TO YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT.

When it comes to natural rights, you are parroting John Locke who considered property rights one of the natural rights (but only because society as he saw it could not exist without property rights). If he lived in communist Russia, he would have a very different view of property rights. If he even lived in England 5 centuries earlier, he would not have enjoyed property rights the way it was understood in his day and ours. Rights are not some static gift of God, they are part of our social contract, things we get in exchange for meeting our obligations (e.g. paying your taxes), they can change over time and if we are not careful they can evaporate.

OOOOHHHHH, Okay I see what you are saying. The government is only going to provide the means of funding the health care (like they do with medicare), the glorious free market will take care of the rest. If all the doctors in the country go on strike, we will import doctors from other countries and we will realize that human physiology is more or less the same all over the world.

I know plenty of doctors that have decided to retire in the last 20 years when health insurance became ubiquitous because healthcare reimbursement rates dropped so low. They are used to working for thousands a day and now have to work twice as much for half as much money. And yet medical schools still reject a higher percentage of their applicants than anyone else.

It was a property right (see Dredd Scott, again), you know, the thing you called a natural right. The fact that it was a shitty property right made it no less of a right. It was a right protected and enforced by the courts.

How would you make a direct causal link between anything any a President did and this recovery. I show people the way we went from losing jobs at an increasing rate every month to losing jobs as slower and slower rates util we start to gain jobs ad increasing rates every month and the answer is “but unemployment is still high so it didn’t work” I just don’t know how to respond to someone who thinks that 10% unemployment while losing 800,000 jobs a month to an unemployment rate of 9% that is gaining 200,000 jobs a month isn’t progress. Sure it could be better, we could be back in a Clinton economy… you know, when those higher tax rates didn’t seem to deepen the last Republican recession.

And I’m saying that if the economy was buzzing along, people would ooh and ahh at the shiny new health care system we got.

[/quote]

Yeah but there usually isn’t a 40 seat swing during mid term elections in the house or a 5 seat swing in the senate. Remember “its the economy stupid” well its applicable this year as well.

398

The point was that it is spending that is growing uncontrollably, not revenue that is dropping. Cutting spending is where the focus should be if you want to address the deficit.

No serious economist believes that tax increases can improve growth. There are multiple data points showing that increasing taxes on high-income taxpayers could actually decrease government revenue and vice versa (Arthur Laffer presents some here: Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ). Raising taxes when growth is uncertain (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAwtTscyEU9xW-ptb6Y1_1_nsC3A) would be a big mistake.