Why were the Bush Tax cuts temporary ?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@RitterSport

Well, since social security and Medicare are on the chopping block due to future federal deficits, I’m not sure it makes sense to exclude those from the tax bill. In that case, you should add payroll taxes to the percentage that the little people pay. It sure looks the same as income taxes from this end of the paycheck.

Unless you are saying that FICA taxes are ultimately going to be used to pay for thigns other than FICA expenses, then no I think we can segregate the two. I think it might be worth pointing out that FICA taxes have steadily increased to offset the cash flow problems associated with tax cuts since the Reagan days.

For anyone who is limited to paying payroll taxes, they have absolutely no skin in the game when it comes to income taxes. If they did, they might have a stronger opinion on how flat the tax system is right now.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s just federal income tax, though. They’re paying at least twice that in sales, excise, consumption, property, capital gains and other taxes, remember.

I don’t think its the same thing.

There is not a single dollar of social security or medicare tax that will ultimately go to pay for anything other than medicare or social security.

Sales tax is not federal

property tax is not federal

consumption tax does not exist as far as i know

capital gains is already counted in federal income tax and I doubt anyone who pays little or no federal income tax has very much capital gains tax.

I’m not sure about excise taxes but I think most of these are state and local (I guess gas has a tax but its not really huge).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@RitterSport

And, most of those taxes fall disproportionately on lower income households. A hedge fund manager is only going to buy so many yachts.

If you want to talk about teh equitable distribnution of the tax burden then I agree that we need to be MUCH MUCH more progressive but that doesn’t mean that the income tax for almost half the population should be ZERO. I think the top marginal tax rate should be closer to 50% (perhaps not right away but over time) and I think that having a zero income tax rate is bad for citizenry.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@InterestedObserver

80% of the cuts went and go to the top 3%.

While i agree taht the tax cuts were either incredibly irresponsible or increadibly stupid, I think the top 2% “only” got 50% of the tax cuts so its hard to imagine that the next 1% got another 30%.

The average tax savings for the other 97% of us is about $650. A cheap pay-off which allowed one of the largest transfers of wealth fom the poor and middle class to the rich ever.

cite? I believe that the average tax cut for families that pay tax was over $1000

These tax cuts alone account for a significant percentage of the deficit, costing 70 billion a year and generating ZERO jobs to date.

They cost much more than 70 billion per year. They estimate that the tax cuts will cost about 4 trillion over 10 eyars and the cuts for the top 2% alone wold cost 2 trillion.

I’m pretty damned exercised about this…so we can’t extend UE benefits for millions who can’t find work through no fault of their own, are debating cuts to SS and Medicare (which are not even IN the general budget or in any way resp. for the deficit AND running surpluses) and yet we can “afford” tax cuts for millionares.

Well, apparently that is the way that teh Democrats are interpreting the election.

Seems that’s what has happened; 2 more yrs of treasury busting tax breaks for the rich in exchange for a brief extension of UE benefits. Democrat pussies. I guess I am going to go back to voting for Independent candidates. Maybe rioting in the streets to boot. :mad:

Yeah, I don’t see the point in voting Democrat anymore if they’re going to roll over every single time.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Huerta88

It counts to counterbalance my point that generally people come to the U.S. for top notch advanced medical care, but both really are side issues to his unsustainable claim that the medical care standard in the U.S. was “ruined,” which is just made up.

Having worked in Europe, Asia and the US. I would say that universal health care works exceedingly well at MUCH lower costs than the US system most of the time but if I ever came down with cancer or something I would prefer the American health care system. Of course if i couldn’t afford it, the American health care system might as well not exist.

If a universal health care system would ruin the incentives that propel medicine in this country we have to ask how much more money are we willing to spend as a nation (compared to nations with universal health care) to have the rate of scientific advancement we have and are we willing to sacrifice some of that advancement for greater access and equity in health care.

Its not taht medical advance would come to a standstill, a lot of innovation still occurs in communist countries where the incentives are almost non-existant (lasik surgery comes to us compliments of the USSR) but it is doubtless that the profit motive propels a lot of the reasearch and development.

[gonzomax]

The best health care in America is available to those who can afford it. I don’t get the best doctors in the world when I go to my local doctor. I have no idea how good or bad he is, but he is no star. The clinic is local and does not provide the cutting edge technology that is available to some.
If you are rich ,you get the best docs in the world. I don’t get them.
Can you get the best health care in the world in America? I can’t.
People are lined up from several states to get care from doctors when they set up a free clinic. It is like Doctors Across Borders in America. People drive for days to get seen. They have zero medical care without the occassional clinic.
Millions have no coverage and no medical care. Average that with those who actually have top notch care and the overall quality drops significantly. I could show you the stats but America’s health care is rated down the line like 38th in the world.

[Robot_Arm]

@Huerta88

When you quit taking 40% and instead take only 37% from one guy’s earned income, while allowing another guy to pay 0%, there is no intellectually honest way to pretend that wealth has been transferred from the slacker to the high earner.

A few points to consider:

1. Why do you only compare the extremes of the spectrum? Plenty of people pay 5% or 10%. Let’s talk about them.

2. When taxes are cut, the government runs a shortfall (or really more of a shortfall) and must borrow to make up the difference. Someday, hopefully, those debts will be repaid. When that day comes, if the burden falls more heavily on lower incomes than if there had been no cut, then the effect of that cut is to redistribute wealth.

3. What about someone who works for the government, paving a new road, for example? Is he being justly compensated for his labors, is he creating wealth for the country by building something that will let people and goods move more efficiently, or is he sucking at the government teat by receiving payments directly from it?

4. It’s absurdly oversimplified to think that only direct payments to and from the government are its only impact on wealth distribution. The government sets the rules that we all must play by; it builds the infrastructure, writes and enforces the regulations under which the economy operates. If the government taxes one person at 5% and another at 37%, but then spends that money in a way that enables the rich person to grow his effective income while the poor person’s income stagnates or goes down, then I would say yes, the government is redistributing wealth upward.