>>Demonstrates that those who pay the most taxes should get most of the tax cut<<
i took issue with the supposed "unfairness" of 10% of the people paying 60% of the tax burden. an intellectually *honest* discussion would include the fact those 10% own about 60% (maybe more!) of the wealth.
but the proponents *never* mention that. why? why not put *all* the facts out on the table for discussion? b/c it is propaganda with an agenda to manipulate opinion, imho.truth isn't important (in fact it is important to hide the truth!). selective details with the intent to manipulate opinions is important. very important.
first of all, i think we need to put everything in context and start at square one. spending needs to be put under control. that is first, imho - before one can even discuss a tax cut. bush's 5 or 6% increase doesn't cut it, imho. we need 0% increases at a minimum.
if a tax cut is doable w/o bankrupting the children of this nation, then those that pay more could very reasonably get more back. how much more is the question.
>>but I do not think you can consider a source of employment or business opportunity that requires education and competition as welfare<<
ok, govt subsidized workfare. the govt supports both welfare and workfare. it is a benefit derived directly from govt and its decisions. you think attorneys and accountants don't have HUGE lobbies? they do. they *know* who butters their bread and they spend millions to make sure their bread is liberally buttered. uncle sam - the big sugar daddy. an unnecessarily complex legal and tax system is a handout, imho. why? simplify it and fewer lawyers and accountants are required. period. the supply demand balance gets out of whack and incomes fall. the difference in income is directly attributable to the govt and can reasonably be construed as a workfare subsidy, imho... but, uhum, *that* subsidy is good b/c it goes to people i know that have an education... not imho. it is still a subsidy.
>>To me, welfare is something that is given to someone, but the recipient does not provide an equal amount of work in return.<<
ok, i'll go with your differentiation between govt subsidized welfare and govt subsidized workfare. either way, the govt decides who gets more money. you used the term equal. i'd argue they don't return equal work b/c they rely on the govt to make things very difficult so they get subsidized incomes. simplify the system and then they would get paid a true salary equal to their input (a lot less than now!) - but they don't want that (they *know* it is a lot less than now!) and spend millions on lobbies to prevent it!
btw, if welfare is such a great deal, you better run and sign up tomorrow to get all those benefits!
>>If I did, I apologize...as I did not mean to.<<
any inference i made that i was speaking specifically about you was unintentional. however, many folks fall into this category so i thought i'd bring it up so each person could test their own value system for a "sliding scale."
>>I consider myself to be finanically and economically astute. I have a MBA and have taken quite a few economics courses. Your point that tax cuts will result in equal offsetting inflation is not true. Certanily there will be an inflationary component, but all of the money will not be spent. Much of it, particularly that to the higher tax brakets, will be saved or invested. There will be benefits in the form of stimulation to the economy as well as additional investment capital.<<
i don't consider what you said to counter what i said at all. you just added information. let's say joe 6 packs tax cut is $100. how big will the inflationary component be in order to reduce joe's purchasing power? not big at all. of course, steve forbes has no worries. the $10s of millions he'll save will more than offset any "inflationary component."
hey, that illustrated my original point quite well. ;-)
i do think you minimize the "inflationary component," though. bush and co are touting the tax cut precisley b/c they expect it to stimulate *spending*. they are not touting the fact it will go and sit on the sidelines in some account somewhere doing nothing but garnering interest.
you also know that investment usually entails spending, too. lots of it. just ask cisco's ex employees or investors what happened when "investment" slowed. ;-)
all in all, i'm sure some middle ground could be attained. however, neither side wants middle ground and the rich have the power to get their way and the poor don't. so, i suspect that the wealthy will eventually get a ton back - right or wrong. i also suspect we will bankrupt our children at some point.
all the while i'll be hearing 10% pay 60% of taxes - woe to the horrible life of the top 10% *who own about 60% of the stuff. what a horrible existence! ;-) when i'm wealthy i hope to be enjoying life instead of complaining about how life is so unfair. at least i hope i will be.
the other person who responded to made a good point, too. ss tax stops at a certain point. that tax should not be conveniently ignored to further this propaganda.
it's all about intellectual honesty, imho. not marketing manipulation. |
