Discussion in 'Politics' started by DKSuddeth, Apr 4, 2004.
tax article link
Big shocker here, George W. Bush lied about the tax cuts. I don't know what Kerry's plan will be yet, but it can't be any worse than the Bush plan to increase the wealth of the superwealthy.
MSNBC is full of liberal crap. I know more econ proffesors than you can shake a stick at, and every one of them says that tax breaks are good in the long run and that deficits don't really matter. The only reason the liberal media talks so much about how it didn't benifit poor people is so they can bash Bush. The truth is, the impoverished minority that didn't benifit from the tax breaks...didn't pay taxes to begin with, and now that bracket has increased in size.
Edited to prevent further ridicule for my bad choice of words, seeing as how my follow up post clarifying it seems to have been ignored.
The maximum yearly income for the bottom tax bracket increased, which is what I was referring to when the bracket increased in size. It didn't mean that there are more poor people, just that the requirements have been broadened. Now stop calling me an idiot.
Tax breaks are only good to the extent that they stimulate domestic growth. Even then however, deficits still matter. The money still must be repaid, with interest. In the long run, deficits only don't matter if GDP growth is so strong that the overall increase in tax revenue, even at the lower rate, surpasses the deficits in the near future. However, the GDP growth rate over cycles in the economy (from periodic recession to recession) has remained consistently at about 3% since the 70's. Tax policy does not effect GDP growth long term, only short term. The only way to increase GDP long term is through better efficiency (i.e., technological improvements, infrastructure improvements, a better educated workforce). Tax rates don't do anything to change the basic elements of worker and industry efficiency, long-term.
The idea that deficits don't matter is a notion that originated with Keynes in the 20-30's and was adopted by F.D.R. to get us out of the Great Depression through high government spending, but even Keynes only meant this to be a temporary initiative. In the end, just as in your personal life, if you keep borrowing large amounts for a significant period of time and your income doesn't rise significantly, you're screwed.
Coincidentally, you are also wrong that poor people don't pay taxes. They do. Even if their earnings are such that they don't pay income tax, they still have to pay FICA taxes, which are significant. So it is wrong to suggest that you can't give tax cuts to poorer Americans. You can, by cutting the FICA rates for lower earners.
obvious which side of the hobby horse you're sitting on
take a look at your last sentence, that should say it all.
Very good dk, you can identify people's sides. Do you have a point to a make. A refutation perhaps?
Reilly? Tax breaks are only good in the short term? Isn't the long term comprised of repeated instances of short term? You do not compute.
Tax cuts work. It's econ 101. Libs refuse to acknowledge the importance of the business man in society. They are strictly fodder for villification.
Yes, deficits do matter, but not as much as people seem to think. I don't recall them having caused us any problems in the past except for a couple of minor tax hikes, and I doubt that'll be the case here unless Kerry gets elected. Economic growth is on the incline, and I don't think there'll be a big problem with deficits. As for my last sentence, yes, people who made less than $7000 a year did not pay income taxes. As a person who only works during the summer, I was and still am in that bracket. Now, the borders of that bracket have been extended to $9000/year. The tax cuts are stimulating growth and, all in all, will be benificial.
Separate names with a comma.