"that would only be the case if they did not get most of any increase but they do get the biggest part of almost any increase and Poet indicated that she had no problem with that"
Sigh...
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.
I don't know where you are having a problem here...
"you have said that it is wrong for most of any tax cut to go to the rich while it is not wrong for most of tax increases to go to the very rich. As taxes go up and down if most of the tax cut doesn't go to the rich then eventually taxes would approach 100""
_________________________________
"It seems that you don't have a problem with it either"
I think I would have a problem with tax rates approaching 0 % for the very weathy 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. However, such extrapoloations are ludicrous, and I only mention them because they have been brought up. I have no general bias against the rich; but it must be admitted that they do very well at avoiding paying taxes. The rich have always ran society and acted in their own best interests. There is nothing wrong with this to to a point, but one need not pretend they are hard done by...<ggg>
ctj.org
ctj.org
"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).
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.
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.
But we're not likely ever to see Bush reduce the payroll tax, and he certainly won't change the cap. Despite his calls for fairness in tax cuts and his assurances that working families will benefit from his plan, just a cursory glance at the numbers makes it clear that his priorities lie with his wealthy friends, family, and political patrons."
wage-slave.org |
