I don’t hate the poor. I simply need a fifth Porsche in my drive more than children need to eat. And if you would just listen to my 8 pages of rant on tax distribution that I know is right because I heard it on Rush Limbaugh, I could show you why that is fair and how I am the real victim here.
While I agree that the poor should be helped before you get a fifth Porsche, if you decide to get a fifth Porsche rather than giving that money to the poor, that’s your business. You earned that money, no one else did.
Lucky Ducky!
Why do Republicans hate the poor?
Why do Democrats hate the rich?
Why do people like gross generalization?
“It’s from the government. I didn’t earn it, I don’t need it, but if they miss a payment, I’ll raise hell!”
- Grandpa Simpson
Hey, again, it wasn’t me who threw fuel on the fire by phrasing the OP as “why isn’t the tax system being used to give a third form of “tax relief” to poor people who really don’t pay much tax in the first place?”
Even if [separate debate] the poor are far from lucky and “need”/“deserve” additional pieces of someone else’s pie[/separate debate], “tax credits” or “rebates” are a pretty clumsy, and not terribly honest, way of providing income support or other general economic relief/“income inequality” curatives.
In the wonderful world of economics, we consider avoidability of taxes to be much more harmful than unavoidable ones. In addition to requiring higher rates for the same desired levels of income, avoidable taxes cause huge dead-weght losses. Unavoidable taxes are closer to head taxes, which are far more efficient. Unfortunately, the income tax is NOT unavoidable: you can avoid it by earning less income.
One’s motives for investing do not change just because you have more money. A business opportunity that is unprofitable remains unprofitable no matter how much money you have lying around.
Wait, so the same Senators who are seemingly powerless to cut down on the size of government directly can manage to do indirectly so by cutting taxes and continuing to spend wildly?
As of now, ironically, the Democrats are the relative fiscal conservatives. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, when Republicans control legislatures, whether in state or federal, spending actually tends to increase faster. It isn’t just a matter of them increasing deficits: it’s of them spending more flagrantly. You can also see this by looking at the distribution of federal spending/taxation in the country. Republican dominated states tend to pay less in taxes, but get more in spending. Democrat controlled states tend to be the reverse.
Steven Landsburg also notes this, most vividly in the case of Bob Dole’s campaign. That campaign’s two centerpieces were a call for smaller government, and a list of what Dole considered to be his great accomplishments as a Senator every single one of which had increased the size or scope of the federal government. The strange thing wasn’t that he never felt the need to reconcile these seemingly paradoxical values, but the fact that not a single person in the media or punditry ever called him on it.
I don’t find it unfair that the poor, who pay in so little, receive so little. What I do think is foolish is Bush’s stated claim that the cuts are to jump-start the economy. The best way to do this would be to put the money in the hands of the middle class. (Actually, a better way would be to cut various taxes involved in business, but I think we can all agree that would be politically difficult) Politcally easier to swallow for both sides of the aisle, and not such cannon fodder for the election cycle. Painting himself as a centrist hero to the middle class is what Bush certainly needs about now. Like his father before him, the handling of the domestic agenda may very well result in his undoing.
The real best way to do it would be to actually implement the tax cuts today instead of in future years. What he has done is not tried to help todays ecnomony, but, at the very soonest, election year’s economy. Very very bright strategy: the real recovery happens right around the time when his campaign pulls into full smear "change the tone by being more vicious than any campaign in recent history) gear, and the real problems don’t show up until after the whole election is over.
The SJ Mercury News had a similar article today. They did point out that the people in question cannot receive the deduction because they don’t pay enough taxes in the first place. Of course, that was burried at the very end of the articel, but I guess for a fairly leftish newspaper like the Merc, that’s not too bad.
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.htm
Great article from Snopes. Might be to simple for some people to grasp. The idea that the Republicans are some how cheating the poor out of their due is weak.
If you want to do social engineering, be honest and lower the requirements for welfare, while at the same time increasing the benefit.
Of course, all that has done in the past is create an unhealthy dependency on Uncle Sam.
Well, actually, the problem I think is not that it is too simple but that it is too simplistic.
For one thing, while the rich may be getting roughly the same share of the cut as they pay in federal income taxes, they are getting a share quite out of proportion to what they pay in all federal taxes and even more way-out-of-proportion to what they pay in all taxes. (And, as a result of this, further pressure will be put on states to raise taxes…and states tend to raise their revenues way more regressively than the federal income tax is raised.)
By the way, while we are posting things, here is Warren Buffett’s take on the dividend tax cut and the current balance of taxation in general. He’s one of the rich people who the parable would tell us might just “leave the table” if we don’t shower tax breaks on him.
Here is a good study of how little most people get from the Bush tax cut.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/
Timothy Noah weighs in, and does, I think, a fairly good job of showing that the administration has flat-out lied about which and how many people are affected.
What people are missing in this debate is that Republicans wanted to give the poor the expanded tax credit, but were unable to do so because of opposition from Democrats and two pseudo-Republicans to the size of the tax bill. If the tax bill could have been over $350 billion, the expanded tax credits would have been in there.
So while the question “why do Republicans hate the poor?” is, frankly, ignorant, if one were to engage in this sort of namecalling, it might be a better question to ask, “why do Democrats hate the poor?” since it was Democrats who blocked a larger tax package and thus the expanded tax credit.
If wishes were horses, beggers would ride. :dubious:
Personally, I prefer the saying, “You can wish in one hand. . .” (I think you know the rest).
Of course, as it relates to my original post, the original proposal put forth by Republicans had the expanded tax credit in it. It was only after opposition by the Democrats to the size of the package that it had to be scaled back. Thus, it can be properly said that the Democrats (as well as the two “Republicans,” Voinovich and Snowe) caused this expanded tax credit to be taken out of the package.