Tax cuts

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I suppose I'm more inclined to the liberal thought of giving most of the tax cuts to those that need it the most.

Also, in order for a tax cut to work, it requires a cut in spending, not a raise.   In general, if we could cut a large portion of the government out and streamline the rest, I'd be completely in favor of a huge across-the-board tax decrease.

Those who need a "tax cut" most don't pay any taxes.  What you're talking about is income redistribution, not a tax cut.

Everyone who has a legal job in this country pays taxes.  Bush could have reduced regressive taxes (such as the payroll tax) and helped out everyone, but instead chose to pass tax cuts that mostly only helped the extremely wealthy.

Bush's tax cuts are the primary reason why I think he is a terrible president.  In my mind, they are the worst pieces of legislation passed in my lifetime.

Typicial Democratic nonsense.  I am going to assume that you are simply buying the party line here.  The main point of the Bush tax plan is that he lowered rates across the board.  He replaced the tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.

So that means that someone in the lowest tax bracket who was paying 15 percent before the Bush tax cuts is now paying 10 percent.  How does that only help the wealthy?

Since you brought it up....
The lowest tax bracket, the 15%, is the only income tax bracket that was not reduced under Bush's tax cut.  Most families in this country don't pay income taxes above this bracket.  The Bush tax cut did create a 10% bracket for the first $7,000 in income, but this is effectively only a 1% reduction in the 15% bracket, vs. a 3% reduction in the 28% bracket, vs. reductions of 6-8% in the highest brackets.

This doesn't even include the huge tax cuts that truly only benefit the wealthy like the elimination of the estate tax and the slashing of taxes on stock dividends.

Instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy, Bush could have truly given a tax cut to all taxpayers by reducing the payroll tax.  This tax is especially odious because the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than the rich....you stop paying the tax entirely after $80,000 or so in income.   75% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than income tax, so if Bush really wanted to help the average taxpayer, this is what he would have cut.

[PBrunsel]

Tax cuts are always good, as long as we cut spending. It is irresponcible to cut taxes but raise spending.

[The Duke]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with all of you?

Two pages of posts, and no one has mentioned the fact that this was the first time in history that America has cut txes in a time of war.  Economics arguments aside, until the Third World War is won, there should be no tax cuts or spending increases that are not directly related to victory in the war.  All tax cuts and spending increases that have occurred in the last three years had ought to be repealed, and every penny sent to fund the defense of America.

[TeePee4Prez]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with all of you?

Two pages of posts, and no one has mentioned the fact that this was the first time in history that America has cut txes in a time of war.  Economics arguments aside, until the Third World War is won, there should be no tax cuts or spending increases that are not directly related to victory in the war.  All tax cuts and spending increases that have occurred in the last three years had ought to be repealed, and every penny sent to fund the defense of America.

I agree with you to a point, but we need education and infrastructure increases as well.  Bush's tax cuts were quite boneheaded and desensitized.  I love how the GOPers are touting them and a war at the same time.  It makes no sense.  I was an independent when I registered in 98, but 2002 I realized BUsh is a moron and I became a Democrat!

[opebo]

If the Federal government had never built the Interstate highway system in the 1950's, do you think our economy would be better or worse than it is today? There is no way that the states would have been able to coordinate them between themselves, nor been willing to.

The Interstate Highway system is the worst thing that ever happened to the US - instead of dense, walkable cities connected by railways we have this nightmare sprawl of exhausting driving.  Everwhere looks the same and everyone's fat.  

[The Duke]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with all of you?

Two pages of posts, and no one has mentioned the fact that this was the first time in history that America has cut txes in a time of war.  Economics arguments aside, until the Third World War is won, there should be no tax cuts or spending increases that are not directly related to victory in the war.  All tax cuts and spending increases that have occurred in the last three years had ought to be repealed, and every penny sent to fund the defense of America.

I agree with you to a point, but we need education and infrastructure increases as well.  Bush's tax cuts were quite boneheaded and desensitized.  I love how the GOPers are touting them and a war at the same time.  It makes no sense.  I was an independent when I registered in 98, but 2002 I realized BUsh is a moron and I became a Democrat!

I agree that there are domestic needs, but they need to wait, too.

[jdowd]

i agree with obepo somewhat - the interstate highway system did destroy walkable cities - but surburbanization allowed for massive homeownership and wealth (people invested in homes instead of paying rent in the cities) and helped create the middle class.
-but i think the solution is not tax-cuts but some urban planning - i'm am so sick of these mcmansion communities and strip malls being built all over NJ.

i also agree with an earlier post - the argument about small vs. big government is really a simplistic one - its really about what govt should and should not do and how they should do it.

im inclined to take a more socialist position on govt functions - meaning that the more government does (in a democracy) the more equal control the population has over the functioning of society - leaving it all up to the market is a system of one dollar, one vote - and i dont have a lot of dollars.  
while welfare handouts are a bad idea - public universities, public trans, national health care etc. i think are good ideas whose benefits cant be individualized - in other words the education, environmental, and health standards of the entire nation are important, they are collective goods and should be paid collectively -everyone benefits whether they use these things or not.

[TeePee4Prez]

i agree with obepo somewhat - the interstate highway system did destroy walkable cities - but surburbanization allowed for massive homeownership and wealth (people invested in homes instead of paying rent in the cities) and helped create the middle class.
-but i think the solution is not tax-cuts but some urban planning - i'm am so sick of these mcmansion communities and strip malls being built all over NJ.

i also agree with an earlier post - the argument about small vs. big government is really a simplistic one - its really about what govt should and should not do and how they should do it.

im inclined to take a more socialist position on govt functions - meaning that the more government does (in a democracy) the more equal control the population has over the functioning of society - leaving it all up to the market is a system of one dollar, one vote - and i dont have a lot of dollars.  
while welfare handouts are a bad idea - public universities, public trans, national health care etc. i think are good ideas whose benefits cant be individualized - in other words the education, environmental, and health standards of the entire nation are important, they are collective goods and should be paid collectively -everyone benefits whether they use these things or not.

Are you Jim Dowd formerly of the Wild?  I know he was from Brick, NJ.