Tax cuts

[TeePee4Prez]

Simple question, but here seems to be a lot of animosity regarding this issue.  Of course I want more money in my pocket, but when there'a a deficit, tax cuts are a bottom priority.  I also feel the cuts were skewed largely to the top brackets (namely top BRACKET) being from 39.6 TO 35% while smaller groups got a much smaller margin.  Newsweek did an escellent articel on this and said that someone getting a million dollars would essentially get a brand new BMW every year.  

Another crock of BS are the reductions in capital gains and dividends (though I have a proposal on that).  Why should "unearned" income be taxed less than "earned" income.  One argument I can give to the GOP regarding dividends is the concept of "double taxation" and they're very right.  My solution would be instead of a corporate tax a retained earnings tax of say 15% flat while dividends and capital gains will be taxed at the individual's marginal rate.  I know I've championed progressive taxation in previous posts, but some firms are much greater than others and employ a lot of people.  I feel this is a fair and balanced proposal helping business and making sure executives pay their dues.

Another one is the estate tax.  I feel it should not be eliminated, but the exemption should be MUCH hihger and indexed to inflation to say $3-5 million for now.  A lot of upper middle class estates fall into this category and this was only meant to supermillionaires.

Lastly, the AMT is wrongly targeting the middle class.  Higher income individuals somehow dodge this burden; however, middle class taxpayers especially in high local income tax ares like most of the NE Corridor get trapped into this.  The exemption also needs to be fixed on this one as well.  

[12th Doctor]

Yes

[Nym90]

No! You hit it right on, Handzus. Well said.

[WalterMitty]

the only thing wrong with the bush tax cuts is that they didnt go far enough.

it makes me want to scream when i hear people talk about the 'surplus'.  why does government need a surplus?  since when did government become a 'for profit' operation?

[Nym90]

Because the government has a massive debt that it has to pay off.

[??????????]

I earned my money let me keep it. The govt needs to learn budgeting like i have to do on a monthly basis.

[Nym90]

Well, I agree that the government should learn how to balance the budget.

The problem with your philosophy is that government helped you to earn your money. The services that are provided by government and society helped enable you to earn your money. If there was anarchy and no government at all, you wouldn't earn as much money as you do. Thus, it is only fair that you would help pay for the system that enables you and others to make money in the first place.

[Lunar]

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

[dazzleman]

Well, I agree that the government should learn how to balance the budget.

The problem with your philosophy is that government helped you to earn your money. The services that are provided by government and society helped enable you to earn your money. If there was anarchy and no government at all, you wouldn't earn as much money as you do. Thus, it is only fair that you would help pay for the system that enables you and others to make money in the first place.

I think you're right in principle.  The argument is over the LEVEL of government intervention, not the fact of it.

The argument will never end.  Liberals argue for ever-increasing government intervention that will gobble up more and more of our income in taxes, while conservatives want less government intervention.  Finding the right balance is the key.

The GI Bill is an example of a government program that worked fantastically.  It took highly motivated people and gave them a chance that they would not have otherwise had to better themselves, and it benefitted society as a whole greatly.

Unfortunately, many government programs today are viewed by their "beneficiaries" as a means to get other people to for them what they ought to be doing for themselves.  I don't have a problem so much with the level of government spending, but with the way in which much of it is being spent.

The problem is not as bad since welfare reform.  The now-defunct AFDC program was an example of the absolute worst form of government intervention, in paying single women to have children they could not support or raise properly.  It sent illegitimacy rates, particularly among blacks, through the roof, with devastating consequences that can't be fixed with any amount of money.

A tax cut agenda acts as a necessary counterbalance to the liberal inclination to endlessly expand government spending and its share of the economy, with all the deliterious social effects that come along with the entitlement programs that liberals like to create.

[© tweed]

No, I think it was too heavily weighted to help the upper classes.

[Lunar]

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

They pay taxes, just perhaps not income tax.  In addition, there are people who badly need tax cuts who belong to a lower income tax bracket.  To me, I don't care if a millionaire has an extra 20 grand or not, but I do care whether my 20 neighbors have an extra 1 grand each.

 It's not always a choice between helping the poor and helping the economy, I think the progressive income tax does both.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, I agree that the government should learn how to balance the budget.

The problem with your philosophy is that government helped you to earn your money. The services that are provided by government and society helped enable you to earn your money. If there was anarchy and no government at all, you wouldn't earn as much money as you do. Thus, it is only fair that you would help pay for the system that enables you and others to make money in the first place.

You added to my point quite nicely and I didn't get the time to mention it.  To all you GOPers in here, what pays for roads and interstates to transport goods for you to make money?  What pays for education so you don't have idiots working for you?  What defends your profits from foreign attacks?  TAXES!!!!  I still feel those that benefit from the aforementioned things should pay a higher rate not only to help those needy, but for their own sake as well.  It's not Communism, but common sense!  

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

perhaps, but income redistribution is needed.

I voted no.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The major problem with the Bush tax cuts is the way they gimmicked them so that a good deal of the cuts would come after Bush was out of office, even if he is elected in November.  Bush has done a lot of shady budgetary accounting these past four years. If a private company did their accounting like the government does,  the whole board of directors and the CEO qould be going to jail.  As tempting as the idea of our 535 member Board of Directors going to jail is, I don't think its going to happen.

[opebo]

I like the elimination of the inheritance tax and the reductio in capital gains tax.  The regular income tax reductions I couldn't care less about.

[Bono]

I think the tax cuts were rights, it's only a shame that they weren't together with budget cuts. In response to the poster who asked where do teh money for the roads and schools comes from, I'd like to answer, first, that the money to schools comes from state income tax and proprety tax. The monster known as Department of Education manages to spend bilions of dolars a year in "education", but educates no one. Education is States' Rights only. As for roads, I'm yet to see the place in the constitution where the federal government is granted the power to build roads. Again, thats States' Righs all the way. If the federal governmetn limited itself to do what its constitutionaly authorized to do, the income tax could be of a flat 10% and there would even be a surplus.
I'd like to add that the richest 1% of taxpayers allready pay for 34% of all income tax revenues, and the top 5%, those making over 125000$, pay more than half. Frankly, I think they pay much more than their fair share.
I'm in favor of a balanced budget amendment, tough, and of paying the debt the quickest as possible.

[Nym90]

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.

[Bono]

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.

Yes, I should have written that the roads are more tolerable. But I think the federal government could have limited itself to coordinate the states.

[Gustaf]

I voted no, b/c in the context of allowing such a huge budget deficit I think it was wrong to do so. However, I do support lower taxes, New Federalist has a point on who's money we're talking about.

But cutting taxes without lowering expenses is ridiculous...it isn't really a tax cut, it's simply redistributing the texes from the living to the unborn, the latter being a group that Republicans normally care a lot for...

[Nym90]

Exactly. It's us young folks who will have to pay off this debt one day in the form of higher taxes, and as you say, those not even born yet.

[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.

[KEmperor]

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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for roads, I'm yet to see the place in the constitution where the federal government is granted the power to build roads.

Article I Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

This clearly grants the federal government the authority to engage in infrastructure projects in the fields of communication and transportation.  The TVA  needs a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause for its electricity infrastructure to be deemed constitutional.  Building the interstate highway system doesn't.

[??????????]

Roads are paid for from the taxes on gas. Not income taxes.