Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Bush's Tax Cuts Are Unfair ... To the rich. By Steven E. Landsburg Posted Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004, at 4:20 AM PT The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend) are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich. I know there's a lot of hype to the contrary, but look at the numbers. If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. Here's the big picture: Continue Article Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises. That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance—the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent. Moreover, if you break that top quintile down into finer pieces, you discover that the super-rich weren't treated much better than the near-super-rich—and certainly no better than the middle class. If you were in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, your tax cut was about 11 percent. If you were in the top 1 percent, your tax cut was still about 11 percent. And if you were in the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Then you got about a 12.7 percent cut—almost exactly the same as the median taxpayer. Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that's true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term "tax cut." In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody's going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president's been cutting the taxes of today, he's been raising the taxes of tomorrow. And who's going to pay those taxes? The "cuts" of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it's been in recent memory, and that's a hard sort of change to undo. We got where we are by cutting taxes mostly for the poor and the middle class; to reverse that, you'd have to raise taxes mostly on the poor and the middle class—and think of the outcry that would cause. So in the not too distant future, most of us will be paying higher taxes, but the rich will be paying a larger share of those taxes than anyone would have expected before the Republicans came to town. How should we feel about that? My own opinion is that the rich already pay too much—it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he receives 30 times as much in government services, which strikes me as implausible). If you share my sense of fairness, you'll join me in condemning the president's tax policy. But if, on the other hand, you believe that the tax system should soak the rich even more than it already does—or, to put it more genteelly, that the tax system should be more progressive than it already is—if, in other words, you are a mainstream Democrat—then George W. Bush is your guy. http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201 OMG!SLATENEWSLOL2004! -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 You expect me to buy that left-wing hippie shit? It doesn't even say DEVELOPING... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 "The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend)" Did Kerry vote for them? Or was he absent? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I am still waiting for the "interesting" part to jump out and make itself be seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Let me know, too. I didn't actually read the article. I just saw "slate" and responded... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Let me know, too. I didn't actually read the article. I just saw "slate" and responded... The point was that if you want a more progressive tax system --- Bush is the man you should be voting for, since his tax cuts were unfair to the rich. I figured NCM wouldn't get it since I don't know how to post Crayon drawings up here to make a map for him. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I figured NCM wouldn't get it since I don't know how to post Crayon drawings up here to make a map for him. -=Mike oh now you are just teasing me......could ya, could ya....pweety please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I figured NCM wouldn't get it since I don't know how to post Crayon drawings up here to make a map for him. -=Mike oh now you are just teasing me......could ya, could ya....pweety please. Nah. I'm partially worried that if I posted with the wrong colors, you'd assume it was racist and would be insufferable. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Mike, are there ANY liberals here that you like?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Mike, are there ANY liberals here that you like?... Well, Truman's dead --- so probably no. -=Mike ...To paraphrase Coulter, you must treat libs with tough love --- except you don't really love them too much... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Truman was a TSM member?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Truman was a TSM member?... You can't spell TSM without Harry S. Truman. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals I'm moderate. Not stupid. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals I'm moderate. Not stupid. -=Mike What, if anything, do you have a liberal view on? Because I've only seen you to have a conservative view of anything, even social issues, which is where most conservatives tend to be liberal on, if at all. I'd imagine that since you come off so conservative on the stuff you talk about on here that you must be a hippie on some other stuff to balance it out, seeing as how you are a "moderate". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals I'm moderate. Not stupid. -=Mike What, if anything, do you have a liberal view on? Because I've only seen you to have a conservative view of anything, even social issues, which is where most conservatives tend to be liberal on, if at all. I'd imagine that since you come off so conservative on the stuff you talk about on here that you must be a hippie on some other stuff to balance it out, seeing as how you are a "moderate". Well, I support human rights...but since that is no longer a liberal concern, it's tough. How about I support marijuana legalization, prostitution legalization, and gambling legalization? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals I'm moderate. Not stupid. -=Mike What, if anything, do you have a liberal view on? Because I've only seen you to have a conservative view of anything, even social issues, which is where most conservatives tend to be liberal on, if at all. I'd imagine that since you come off so conservative on the stuff you talk about on here that you must be a hippie on some other stuff to balance it out, seeing as how you are a "moderate". Well, I support human rights...but since that is no longer a liberal concern, it's tough. How about I support marijuana legalization, prostitution legalization, and gambling legalization? -=Mike Eh, Human rights sounds like something that doesn't belong on the political spectrum. Prostitution? Egads, that IS out there, to say the least. Can you defend that with anything other then "people should do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Prostitution? Egads, that IS out there, to say the least. Can you defend that with anything other then "people should do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else"? Is it necessary to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 22, 2004 I thought Mike was the most moderate poster on the board. Doesn't that mean you have to shower equal love upon conservatives and liberals I'm moderate. Not stupid. -=Mike What, if anything, do you have a liberal view on? Because I've only seen you to have a conservative view of anything, even social issues, which is where most conservatives tend to be liberal on, if at all. I'd imagine that since you come off so conservative on the stuff you talk about on here that you must be a hippie on some other stuff to balance it out, seeing as how you are a "moderate". Well, I support human rights...but since that is no longer a liberal concern, it's tough. How about I support marijuana legalization, prostitution legalization, and gambling legalization? -=Mike Eh, Human rights sounds like something that doesn't belong on the political spectrum. Prostitution? Egads, that IS out there, to say the least. Can you defend that with anything other then "people should do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else"? Why should it be explained further? I wouldn't partake in it (paying for sex? I'm not stud boy, but God, I'm never that low), but if a woman wants to sell her pussy, I see no reason why I should care one way or the other. Just make sure kids can't access it and it's fine by me. I also support lotteries fervently, as they are a tax on idiots, which I think is grand. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Prostitution? Egads, that IS out there, to say the least. Can you defend that with anything other then "people should do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else"? Is it necessary to? No, not really considering that that is the basis for everything else we do pretty much. Pornography is essentially prostitution except you're both getting paid and tons of other people are making profits as well, not to mention the people who watch. So I guess you can't really say no. I'll throw out this question for you guys; do you think there is such a thing as Absolute Truth? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Thread Killer 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 Yes there is an absolute truth...and I am that truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2004 And I agree with Mike on marijuana, prostitution and gambling. Although, I guess i'm skeptical on the legalization of Marijuana since there'd be precedent to allow for the Feds to withhold funds from states for their drug laws. But this country has a confused drug policy. Schedule I drugs are defined as those considered to have high potential for abuse, with no recognized medical use in treatment in the US Schedule II drugs are those with a high potential for abuse; some (but often marginal) recognized medical use; and a high incidence of physical or psychological dependence. These are available only by prescription, and distribution is carefully controlled and monitored by the DEA. Marijuana is Schedule I, Cocaine and Meth are Schedule II. One piece of evidence on the ass-backwardsness of the DEA. Anybody have any idea on the usual length of time that drug offenders spend in jail? Because most violent offenders don't serve much more than half their sentences. Drug offenders might spend more than half their time in jail. It might be deceptive to characterize marijuana legalization as "Liberal", unless we can admit that's something that most Democrats are "Conservative" on. I consider it a Libertarian sort of stance. If the drug has no potential of causing violent crime (such as the more serious drugs or date rape drugs) then the people who have it shouldn't be spending their time in jail. As for Prostitution.. in most places where it's legal, they register brothels and everything, to make sure it's safe as possible. And as for Gambling.. the legalization doesn't seem like such a big issue in Missouri. We have riverboats and everything. Change is not going to just happen due to a law. It happens on a personal level. It involves responsibility. That also covers my Abortion stance. I don't like the idea, the Government shouldn't ban it, people should be responsible with their own sex lives and if they were, then abortions would go down. I think there's a thread to go over this stuff. But I might still be a Liberal (technically) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2004 I think the tax cuts are overall good, but tax cuts must be met by budget cuts. My wet dream is the consumption tax, which will never happen. Clear, easy tax laws, and you pretty much get rid of the IRS! Of course, apply it to businesses as well. I'm surprised that Bush paints Kerry as a tax and spen liberal, because BUSH is a tax less and spend liberal in that arena. You have to cut some gov't programs to cut taxes, and I think that would be a good thing. People say that the deficit is a cycle, that's because conservatives get in office and cut taxes, then liberals get in office and raise taxes to offset the debt. Neither of the parties often actually cut the fat off the government system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2004 Along the same lines. TCS.COM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites