[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
A interesting interview with Dr. Krugman.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002170.html

I do not know enough about economics to add to it.

But I did read it. And thought it was worth passing on.

There is mention of A.Sullivan Does anyone have any good interviews with this gentleman ??

He lost all credibility with this line:

Bush says, I've got a tax cut that's aimed at working people, ordinary working people, and then you just take a look at it and discover that most of it's coming from elimination of the estate tax and a cut in the top bracket, so it's heavily tilted toward just a handful of people at the top. It's just a flat lie about what the tax cut is.

While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people.

[tesco samoa]

AK i do not fully understand that policy as it does not affect myself personally ( live in canada). But would like to learn more about it. Any suggestions?

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people.

How much did you pay in payroll tax (aka ss and medicare)? Sure you probably paid less in Income Tax, but you still had to pay this. The government lumps ALL taxes together so you should too. If you factor this tax in the wealthy pay less tax percentage wise as well. It always baffles me when people forget about this tax.

Trust me your tax "savings" will be lost when you have to make up for the lost services your no longer getting.

A good example is I may save about $1,500 year in taxes but things like wear and tear on my car because the roads are no longer fixed or child care because their is no longer a pre school in my school district will offset this savings. It all "trickles" down.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Most of the time when people criticize tax cuts, they use half-truths. They will cite the literal percentages of money going back in the cut and say that most goes to the wealthy (at least, more wealthy than the "poor"). This is of course true, but it is irrelevant. Often times, the percent of tax cut to the wealthy is much lower than that to the middle classes. And the lower classes often pay little to no taxes to begin with, due to low income tax brackets combined with various reductions (children, mortgages, etc.). So, when tax cuts are given, most of the money tends to go to the upper middle class and the upper classes. But, this only makes sense, because most of the money came from them in the first palce, and it is a slanted figure anyways. What is more important than raw cash values is the effective percent that the taxes paid goes down. It is most of the time the lowest for the wealthy. Not all tax cut proposals are the same, of course. But, most follow the same basic plan, as there are only so many ways you can do a tax cut.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people.

How much did you pay in payroll tax (aka ss and medicare)? Sure you probably paid less in Income Tax, but you still had to pay this. The government lumps ALL taxes together so you should too. If you factor this tax in the wealthy pay less tax percentage wise as well. It always baffles me when people forget about this tax.

Trust me your tax "savings" will be lost when you have to make up for the lost services your no longer getting.

A good example is I may save about $1,500 year in taxes but things like wear and tear on my car because the roads are no longer fixed or child care because their is no longer a pre school in my school district will offset this savings. It all "trickles" down.

---

Tax cuts are nearly always given when there are budget surpluses, so services rarely get cut do to a tax cut...

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Most of the time when people criticize tax cuts, they use half-truths. They will cite the literal percentages of money going back in the cut and say that most goes to the wealthy (at least, more wealthy than the "poor"). This is of course true, but it is irrelevant. Often times, the percent of tax cut to the wealthy is much lower than that to the middle classes. And the lower classes often pay little to no taxes to begin with, due to low income tax brackets combined with various reductions (children, mortgages, etc.). So, when tax cuts are given, most of the money tends to go to the upper middle class and the upper classes. But, this only makes sense, because most of the money came from them in the first palce, and it is a slanted figure anyways. What is more important than raw cash values is the effective percent that the taxes paid goes down. It is most of the time the lowest for the wealthy. Not all tax cut proposals are the same, of course. But, most follow the same basic plan, as there are only so many ways you can do a tax cut.

Again I'll reiterate the payroll tax is an income tax by a different name. So not only did those making over $500,000 get a bigger tax cut in raw dollars they got a bigger tax in percentage of the total tax cut. A fair tax cut would have lowered the payroll tax as well - not that anyone needed a tax cut to begin with.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:29: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Taxes are way too high to begin with... everyone needs a big tax cut.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AK i do not fully understand that policy as it does not affect myself personally ( live in canada). But would like to learn more about it. Any suggestions?

I'm probably not the guy to tell you where to find info, I have enough trouble figuring out how to fill out my tax forms. I just know the final totals. I won't claim that US tax code makes sense, or that I agree with the way the the income tax system is run in all cases. All I am saying is that to claim Bush is blatantly lying when he says that he is cutting taxes for the working class is a lie in itself. Therefore, the author of that statement has no credibility in my eyes.

[Fyron]

AK, that is generally how people criticize tax cuts, with lies. There is of course legitimate criticism out there, but relatively little.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Taxes are way too high to begin with... everyone needs a big tax cut.

Do you go to a public university?

Anyway I don't about you but I probably can't afford to send my kids to private school so on that basis alone I would rather see the $87B + $65B go to education.

I hope you are startinng to plan for your retirement because with the deficit the way it is unless you've planned well your screwed.

Do you live in a gated community? Police and Fire are going to get cut back so the level of protection your used to will probably go away.

Aren't you from Riverside? The air is pretty much toxic there how can you afford to clean it.

Didn't you mention in one of your Posts that you like national parks well kiss them good by or get used to paying lots to go there.

etc. etc. etc. etc.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:40: Message edited by: rextorres ]