Tax cuts happen, why all the fuss?

Published on April 16, 2005 By Spc Nobody Special In Politics

I originally wrote this here, Link as a reply all the excess drama over Bush and Cheney saving money as a result of their tax cuts. However, largely because of length, (and laziness), I decided to delete my reply and repost it here instead.

Apparently the far (and I do mean far) side of the left seems to think that this was implemented by Bush to save himself a (to him) insignificant amount of money, at the cost of devestating the poor and middle class. Well, I feel devestated, don't you?

Meh. Tax changes affect me little to none. I'm military reporting a gross income of 32 grand a year, and I end up paying 1700 in taxes. If it goes up, goes down, I make a couple of grand higher or lower, it affects me what, a couple of hundred dollars if anywhere near that? Not enough to pay one electric bill in a hot Texas summer.

I'm not poor, but I've got a lot of debt. For here, I'm lower middle class, and I don't see that lowering the taxes on the wealthy hurts me particularly unless it seriously hurts the economy, which I doubt, and then not much.

Good grief, I pay far more taxes in the form of sales tax, luxury tax (well, at least in gasoline, higher prices through tariffs, etc.), property tax, utilities taxes, social security, Medicare, et cetera than income tax could ever amount to. Something like three times as much. These taxes are ever made nearly as much fuss over, aren't for the most part progressive in any way, yet account for at least twenty percent of my income, before income tax ever comes into the picture.

Before income tax could represent serious amounts of money, my income would be far to high for those large amounts to really hurt me. (Which is of course the idea behind progressive taxes) If they want to lower some taxes, and it doesn't make a serious dent in the economy, I say lassez faire (which being this tired, I undoubtedly mispelled). Or to quote Jefferson out of context, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. It's not hurting me.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Apr 19, 2005

Very simple- If you look at your spending and find you CAN cut $100 per month out of your expenses and you were $600 out of balance, even after you cut the $100 you still have a $500 per month problem.

No, if you do not have the $600, you do with less, period. You cut your spending $600. DOnt tell me you cannot. That is like saying you cant accept personal responsibility. If you have to, you do it. Period.

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

Dr Guy

Not if the spending after you cut is ESSENTIAL. You may not be able to cut things like insurance, rent, unilities, gasoline, food, medical. There is no $675 Billion of optional expenses per year in the federal budget. The problem with the argument that growth in the economy will balance the budget does not consider that most elements in the budget will increase EVERY year- inflation and COLA adjustments as well as higher interest on the growing debt. second, the tax cuts have not been fully phased in and the loss in revenue will continue to grow until 2010. If the economic growth slows due to highet interest and higher oil prices, the problem becomes worse. The reason we should first restore the tax cuts for the top 5% is that will have the least impact on spending and GDP growth! Increasing taxes on the middle income workers will cut spending and slow economic growth more then tax increases to the top 5%.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

Our problem is that we are robbing Peter to pay part of what we owe Paul and then borrowing the balance from Sam. Sone day Sam will want to be paid and he will also want the interest which we do not have.

Agreed, but when you pay your bills, if you don't have enough, do you threaten Paul with prison if he doesn't give you more money?

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

This is not a threat. It is meeting the obligations of this country to PAY for what it is spending. After spending cuts that are acceptable to the majority ( not just the conservatives) have been made, we must provide the revenue to balance the budget even if it means increasing taxes.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

This is not a threat.

No, a tax IS an implied threat. Pay up, or go to jail, lose your home.. whatever.

Yes, the government does have an obligation to cover it's expenses, but as I pointed out in my "Question for Class Warfare Warriors" Link article, there is nothing Constitutional about a graduated tax system.

We'll agree that it's not "just conservatives" that should have a say in what is acceptable spending. It is the Constitution.

Where we disagree is here:

even if it means increasing taxes.

Apparently to you, there should be tax increases (as a percentage of income) on only those you call "the rich", but not on yourself (or those for whom you deem worthy of being exempted).

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

Tax cuts on the wealthy will have less adverse impact on spending (demand) and GDP growth then on the middle class. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the graduated income tax. It has to do with what is best for the majority in this country. The vast majority of the benefit went to the wealthy and since there were no resources to pay for the tax cut it needs to be reversed the way the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treas said in 2001. they told Bush the tax cuts should only continue so long as there was a "SURPLUS" from which to pay for them. They both told Bush NOT to return to annual budget deficits!

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

Tax cuts on the wealthy will have less adverse impact on spending (demand) and GDP growth then on the middle class.

But my friend, to most the nation, YOU are among the wealthy, yet YOU do not think YOU should be taxed to the hilt... so why should those you YOU think are wealthy?

It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the graduated income tax.

How do you get off saying it has nothing to do with the graduated income tax? You are supporting higher percentages for those who make more than you. How is that not the graduated income tax?

Nothing to do with the Constitution? Everything the fed does should be based on the Constitution.

The vast majority of the benefit went to the wealthy and since there were no resources to pay for the tax cut it needs to be reversed the way the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treas said in 2001.

What is has "nothing" to do with is what is best for "the vast majority". The Constitution says that taxes must be uniform. What you are proposing is inherently Unconstitutional.

COL Gene

on Apr 19, 2005

The Federal income tax has NEVER been ruled unconstitutional. As for ParaTed2K

I may be near the top of the middle income but not in the same class as the people that Bush took care of with his tax cuts. No matter what you say, we have a $675 Billion dollar deficit in 2005. NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

The Federal income tax has NEVER been ruled unconstitutional.

True, but as I show, it IS unconstitutional. Just because the people who benefit most from it have no interest in the Constitution that doesn't make it ok.

I may be near the top of the middle income but not in the same class as the people that Bush took care of with his tax cuts.

Your bigotry aside, Prs. Bush did not "take care" of anyone with the tax cuts, he merely reduced the cost of staying out of prison for not paying taxes. Your statement here shows that, while you allow yourself to consider anyone who makes more than you "the rich", you don't recognize that for anyone but your pathetic self.

No matter what you say, we have a $675 Billion dollar deficit in 2005. NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!

Yes, we have a $650 Billion Dollar Deficit, but our elected officials also have the responsibility to stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution when considering how to deal with it.

NO spending cuts will be able to solve this problem and some time taxes will have to be increased to prevent this country from going broke!

No, the amount of money brought in may need to be increased, but your class warfare ideas of "tax the rich as long as you don't consider me the rich" stupidity doesn't increase revenue either. All it does is point your stinking crooked finger at those with whom you carry a prejudice mistrust. You might as well be Jesse Jackson saying that the only way to help Black people in America is through reperations.

Bigotry by any other name stinks just as bad.

COL Gene

on Apr 20, 2005

You get the added tax revenue from the segment that will do the least harm. That is from those who can afford to pay a little more - the top 5%. thay are the people that got the BIG benefit over the past 4 years!

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2005

Well, from where I stand, you can afford to pay a little more, so go ahead and pay up!!

You seem to think that "the rich" got that way by putting up with being charged top dollar for everything (including the honor of living in the U.S.).

Because of your way of thinking, we are chasing jobs, our manufacturing base, and our "rich" overseas.

Do you really think macroeconomics is a static situation? Soak the rich, they can afford it!! Oh, wait, that's not fair, you rich people aren't supposed to buy everything from other countries, just to save taxes!! You rich people aren't supposed to have offshore accounts, just to keep more of your own money. Wait a minute you rich meanies, you can't raise your prices just because your costs have increased!!!

Wahh Wahh Wahh!!!

If you increase the cost of existing in one place, all you do is reduce the amount of people willing to stay around to pay the higher prices.

COL Gene

on Apr 20, 2005

YOU CAN NOT FUND 1/4 OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET WITH DEBT. $500 BILLION IN INTEREST EVERY YEAR IS TOO MUCH. THAT IS WHAT BUSH WILL LEAVE THIS NATION WHEN HE RETURNS TO TEXAS!

Draginol

on Apr 20, 2005

Then let's cut spending.. Because I'm already paying a ton of taxes. You want to start ponying up your fair share then we can talk.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!