View Full Version : Tax Cut for the Rich?

02-05-2003, 05:08 AM
I noticed that the complaints by the Dems in Congress regarding Bush's proposals being a tax cut for the rich are not nearly as vocal in the past week. Perhaps it's because the facts don't support that claim:


Now are the Democrats in congress going to push for austerity after a major stock market collapse by pushing for a balanced budget? Perhaps they can propose protective tariffs while they're at it and maybe they can even push for tax increases (the Herbert Hoover economic recovery program from stock market collapses) /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

02-05-2003, 06:21 AM
I noticed this too. It is to be expected. Whatever Bush says or does he will be called stupid and people will say he is controlled by the rich. The whole taxation system is a joke, so I won't go into the merits of the tax cut. However, I will say that it is really funny how both sides can add, subtract, multiply, and divide so differently. Maybe the Dems are using Base 8? It is just another example of the idea that 99% of people, even "very smart" people, don't look at things objectively. When Bush said he would give money to fund Hydrogen automobile research, a lot of people, including people here, said he was lying, etc... If he didn't say anything, they would say "see no funding for hydrogen cars the oil companies own him". What exactly is he supposed to do? It goes the other way too; I am not saying it is just the Dems who do this. It is just the silly state of politics where egos and agendas are so strong that two people can't add numbers together and get the same result. Taxes should be lower for everyone. The rich should not be forced to bear an unfair burden as a penalty for being sucessful. What an "unfair burden" is can be debated. However, the Dems, in my opinon, have been clearly using fuzzy math to convince the masses that the tax cut favors the rich, which is bad. The real solution is to cut spending by about 80%. Anything else is just spinning the wheels.

02-05-2003, 04:21 PM
Since when did facts keep politicians from either party from making a stink when votes and or dollars can be garnered? I think the Democrats are basically incompetent, especially their so-called leadership. I heard Gary Hart speak on a talk show last week. I hope he does decide to run for President; I don't think he has much of a chance, but he is, in my judgment, much more articulate, well-informed, and intelligent than any of the party leadership and current presidential candidates.

As for the balanced budget argument, again remember what I.F. Stone said: all government officials are liars and nothing they say should be believed. The Republicans are in favor of a balanced budget when a Democratic president or congress presides of deficits. They approve of them when they are in control. Ditto for the Democrats. That this surprises anyone surprises me.

Statistics are notorious obfuscators as well. Take, for example, the one used in the WSJ editorial that people making $200,000 a year or over would pay an average of $99,000 a year in federal income taxes. I'd be curious what the average income is for people making over $200,000 a year. And what the average person making exactly $200,000 a year would pay. I note that a person making $2 million a year would get about the same percentage reduction as a person making $50,000. It's things like this that give the republicans a bad name.

Any discussion of income tax, without any discussion of other taxes, is not of much relevance anyway. A person making $200,000 a year, for example, is paying the same payroll tax as a person making $100,000. Thus he is paying at 1/2 the rate. Regardless of whether or not the income tax is as progressive as the WSJ editorial alleges, when the effect of other taxes is added in, progressivity virtually disappears.

02-05-2003, 05:25 PM
Nice post, fine points. I agree with you. I find the current political situation very discouraging.

02-05-2003, 05:27 PM
Glenn and yourself make excellent points. It does seem that SS is more or less a regressive tax and it has to hurt lower income wage earners.