Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (39736)	12/17/2009 6:34:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

y point was to say that what is being called a "tax cut" may not actually be a tax cut. Yes, if you cut a tax to less than zero, its a transfer payment not a real tax cut. it can be an increase in transfer payments for some, and an actual tax increase for others. Creating or increasing transfer payments, just like other spending increases, puts upward pressure on taxes, but it isn't in any direct way a tax increase. Also a bill that contains both these transfer payment tax cuts, and actual tax increases, could be touted as a tax cut if the former exceeds the later, when the reality might be that there is actually a real tax increase. In case that's not clear, I'll give a simplified hypothetical example. If your taxing Bob $100, and John $1000, then you "cut" Bob's taxes by $500 ($100 in real cuts, and $400 transfer payment, to give him a "negative $400 tax burden"), while raising John's taxes by $400 (to $900), some politician might call that a $100 tax cut, while really its a $300 net total increase (and a $400 increase on Bob). Is something like that what you mean?

To: Jim S who wrote (39736)	12/17/2009 6:38:21 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

what is being called a "tax cut" may not actually be a tax cut. Instead, it can be an increase in transfer payments for some, and an actual tax increase for others. Agreed. I still remember Clinton talking about increasing welfare in tax cut terminology. ("targeted tax cut")

To: Jim S who wrote (39736)	12/17/2009 6:56:16 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

You probably mean something like this - ---- Max Baucus Calls Forcing People to Pay Thousands a Year For Insurance a "Tax Cut" Peter Suderman \| December 14, 2009 Senate Democrats met tonight to talk about health care in the wake of Joe Lieberman's recent demands. After the conference was over, Sen. Max Baucus --abused the English language near-- spoke to TPM — and floated what may actually be History's Worst Talking Point: Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) highlighted what could be the new talking point about the Democratic reform bill. "This is the biggest tax cut since 2001," he said, referring to the tax credits and subsidies included in the legislation. That's right: In Max Baucus' fantasy America, a mandate to purchase insurance that you didn't have — at the cost of thousands of dollars per year — is actually a "tax cut." Oh sure, apologists will claim that insurance subsidies will save people a bundle. But the fact is that nearly half of those who buy insurance through the exchanges won't get subsidies, and for those people, average insurance premium prices will go up. And many of those who do get subsidies will nonetheless be forced to shell out for insurance they don't currently have — which, even with government assistance, will often still mean spending thousands each year that they don't currently spend. In other news, Baucus is renaming Tax Day "Free Pizza Night."* *Not actually true. reason.com