i> Because if they DIDN'T get most of the increases THEN it WOULD aproach 0% theoretically if they WERE getting most of the tax cuts. And Poet has said this would be WRONG.
But since they are getting most of the increases and Poet didn't have any problem with that idea (while wanting to keep them from getting most of the benefit) the situation you are discribeing has nothing to do with anything that had been previously discussed. I don't have any problem with them getting most of the increase as long as they also get most of the cuts. Both would make sense as they pay most of the taxes.
I think I would have a problem with tax rates approaching 0 % for the very weathy
I would too as I have already stated. I wouldn't have problem with very low tax rates for the wealthy but only if everyone's tax rates where very low. And 0% of very near 0% is too low in my opinion because while I am for smaller government I don't think we should eliminate almost all of it.
because they were getting most of the tax cuts without correspondingly paying most of the increases, yes. I guess I would say that such a condition would be "wrong" just as Poet did.
Poet didn't say anything about the rich getting most of the cuts but not getting most of the increases, I didn't say anything along those lines, and you have not until the post I am replying to now. No one was either saying that is the way things are or that they want things to be that way.
"Tax cuts for the rich are unnecessary. To put it simply, the rich aren't hurting for money. They don't worry about affording healthcare or sending their children to college. Income tax cuts for the poor aren't helpful because they don't pay a lot of income taxes in the first place. If you think the poor need more money (and by definition, they do) a better solution is a living wage to replace our pathetic minimum wage whose real value keeps falling despite occasional moderate increases (always fought tooth and nail by conservatives).
I don't think someone has to be in enormous pain from high taxes to make tax cuts a good idea. As for the minimum wage increasing it will help some people but at the expense of reducing low wage jobs (many in low wage jobs now will not get a higher wage instead they will just get no wage) and increasing prices for things that are very dependent on labor. Overall its a negative even if some people are helped.
A tax cut even remotely the size that Bush is suggesting makes no sense right now. If our economy continues to grow (preferably based on something other than the fantasies that once boosted Internet stocks), if we eliminate the national debt, if we reduce military spending to a reasonable level, if we devote enough money to preventative healthcare, and if we reduce crime (and the high cost of incarcerating millions) through sensible justice policy, then a tax cut might be a good idea.
Tax cuts help the economy to grow. I think we should pay down some of the debt but not to the extent of eliminating it or at least not over a period of less then a couple of decades which is too long to wait for tax cuts considering today's high tax burdens. Reducing crime is great but not simple and not something that we can count on happening by any particular date. I think the defense burden is reasonable at the moment.
And when it comes time to lower taxes, rather than looking at the income tax rates, let's look at the payroll tax. Currently every American pays 7.65 percent of his income up to $76,200 in FICA taxes. This means that the most anyone pays, no matter how rich, is $5,829.30 per year. Although someone with a $1,000,000 salary makes 20 times as much as someone earning $50,000, he only pays one and a half the FICA taxes. Most of the working poor pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. By eliminating or even raising that $76,200 cap, we could significantly reduce tax burdens on the poor while increasing overall revenue.
The idea behind social security was that it was supposed to be a social insurance payment that everyone that works pays in to and the amount the rich pay is capped because the amount that they can receive is capped. I would just as soon have not had such a program its similar to a big ponzi scheme but if you want to turn it into an welfare type income transfer program that argument should be made explicitly. You might even get me to agree with it but I would have to see it first.
But we're not likely ever to see Bush reduce the payroll tax,
Probably true. I would like to see it cut but then social security will not have enough money. I suppose we could cut the benefits along with the tax but those in or near retirement would oppose this strongly enough to make it politically impossible. Some of them counted on receiving that money and are now or will soon be dependent on it.
Tim |
