When compared to theory, and not law, anecdotal evidence can mean quite a bit.
Unless you can show statistical significance, it means absolutelly ZERO.
Unbelievable.
OK. I saved $1000 in income taxes on someting like $65K of income last year because of the Bush tax cut. However, my school taxes went up by $300, and the amount I pay per year in gas has gone up about $500, and the amount I paid on heating (thanks to the situation in the Middle East) will likely go up at least a few hundred this winter. Have I actually saved any money? No.
You most certainly HAVE saved $1,000 over what you'd have saved under the previous tax code. Unless, of course, you're blaming Bush for your school taxes and petroleum costs (which would be indicative of a total misunderstanding of what caused those costs to rise).
I can't believe you claim to have "studied" economics.
Dude, in one of Ari Fleischer's final press conferences before he left the White House, he had said that the last tax cut affected the middle class a lot... when pressed harder in the next one, and shown facts that the cut did disproportionately help the rich, he said something to the effect of, "Oh, the last tax cut was for the middle class. This time was the wealthy's turn."
Ari didn't say this, I'd wager a year's income on it. But it doesn't matter -- look at the facts. You just said you got $1,000 in tax relief.
I don't care what you say -- cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations does not help the middle and lower classes.
You don't care what I say, fine. But you can't fashion a well-reasoned argument to support what YOU say. These things aren't MY OPINION; they're well-known, tried and true facts.
First, the Bush administration was going to cut taxes to reduce the surplus. Then, when the surplus disappeared, cutting taxes was their solution to recovery. Is there anything cutting taxes doesn't solve?
The indisputable facts are that tax cuts stimulate economies. Period. End of story. What is wrong with you that you would argue the other side of that when every 12th grader knows it.
>> Wouldn't the optimal taxation level be 0%? Why don't you vote for Peroutka?
Taxation is a necessary evil. But after 8 years of Clinton, taxation was, once again, out of control. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced rates and as part of that reform it was agreed that many deductions had to go. After 8 years of Clinton, the rates increased, but without the deductions we had before Reagan.
You have to use your mind and look more deeply than what you get from CNN and the NYT. |
