Tax Cuts Who needs them

[sagegirl]

I havent seen much on the tax cut issue. I for one dont understand why. I think we get alot for our tax dollars and dond know why everybody wants a cut. We get defense, homeland security, social security, medicare,...we get departments of energy, justice, education, health and human services, we get agencies, fcc, fda, faa, epa, irs, gao, treasury, transportation, our federal employees, the list goes on and on. Then we have the huge bureauracies that overseer and regulate all of this. Republicans say they want less government, but I can say in all honestly that when I see people wanting or using these services, republicans and democrats alike, they expect that they will be safe and protected. I have not asked for or directly received any government welfare, disability, unemployment, tax credits, etc. but I acknowledge that I and everyone else benefit indirectly from so many of these programs. I know about pork barrel projects and lets face it both sides are guilty as can be on this, so I know spending could be controlled. Even if we had carefully calculated budgets we still get alot for our tax dollars. Is it just the politicians using us as when they tell us we need tax cuts, sure it sounds good but we have to pay for all this somehow.

 

[Merlin1047]

The answer to your premise lies within your own statement:

I havent seen much on the tax cut issue. I for one dont understand why. I think we get alot for our tax dollars and dond know why everybody wants a cut. We get defense, homeland security, social security, medicare,...we get departments of energy, justice, education, health and human services, we get agencies, fcc, fda, faa, epa, irs, gao, treasury, transportation, our federal employees, the list goes on and on. Then we have the huge bureauracies that overseer and regulate all of this.

If you are an independent-minded person who works for a living and believes that you are entitled to reap the rewards of your efforts, then the detrimental effects of the ever increasing burden of taxation should be obvious.

If, on the other hand, you see government as your "daddy" who provides for all your needs, then you would not understand why we need to reduce the amount of money going to our government and any further discussion would be pointless.

 

[sagegirl]

I see it both ways...we pay and we get something for what we pay for. What I wonder is why tax cuts are the issue....isnt the issue what they spend the money on. And if you dont think you receive alot of indirect or direct benefit from the taxes you pay, you arent paying attention. Please excuse the pun. And the rich have the most to loose thus they should pay proportionally.

 

[MtnBiker]

And the rich have the most to loose thus they should pay proportionally.

What proportion do you believe they pay now?

 

[MtnBiker]

Taxes are the means by which the government collects revenue, not only is it a matter of ideology like Merlin pointed out. It is also an economic belief of maximizing tax revenue from the economy. Too much tax burden will diminish people's willingness to produce, too little tax will create a shortcoming in the tax revenue.

Here is a link to one approach, the Laffer Curve:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7478&postcount=6

 

[Merlin1047]

I see it both ways...we pay and we get something for what we pay for. What I wonder is why tax cuts are the issue....isnt the issue what they spend the money on. And if you dont think you receive alot of indirect or direct benefit from the taxes you pay, you arent paying attention. Please excuse the pun. And the rich have the most to loose thus they should pay proportionally.

Anything that government provides is too expensive in more ways than one.

Monetarily speaking, government programs are a huge waste of money. Generally every service provided by government costs far more than it should. Certainly we derive some benefit from government programs. My point is that I can do without them.

Government should limit itself to its core functions. It should provide for the defense of this nation, it should deal with other nations, it should coordinate efforts between the states on things like transportation, law enforcement, and infrastructure and it should set national priorities on things like energy production, the environment, mass transit, space exploration etc.

The reason I fear government "benefits" brings me to the second and far more serious consequence of paying too many taxes - government "programs". Every "program" sponsored by the government costs us a little bit of our freedom. Example; the federal government confiscates part of my salary. They return some of that money in the form of highway construction funds and education grants. But there are always conditions. In return for giving me my money back for highway construction, the federal government sets ridiculously low speed limits. In return for giving me my money back in the form of education grants to colleges and universities, the federal government insinuates itself onto the college campus. The outrageous thing is that the money we're getting from the feds was OUR money to begin with. Now they're telling us that we have to dance to their tune in order to get a piece of it back. How ridiculous is that?

Even worse than attaching conditions to returning my money to me, is the notorious "unfunded mandate". Whereby the feds tell us we won't get money for highways or education if we fail to comply with their policies on something that ISN'T getting any fed tax money to begin with.

You bet your butt I'm paying attention. Apparently I'm not looking at the government through the same rose-colored glasses that seem to be restricting your vision.

Finally, your assertion that "And the rich have the most to loose thus they should pay proportionally" is puzzling. Do you mean that the rich should pay the same rate of income tax as you or I? If you do, then we're going to lose a whole lot of tax income because the rich pay a much higher percentage than the middle class. Except for kerry, who somehow managed to pay a percentage rate far less than I did last year. So maybe, in a limited sense, you have a point there.

 

[drowe]

Here is our tax system broken down "Barney Style"

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

(This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.)

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day,

ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid

their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh $7.

The eighth $12.

The ninth $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, the ten men ate dinner in the same restaurant every day and seemed quite

happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the

cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay

their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were

unaffected. They would still eat for free. But, what about the other six,

the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that

everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they

subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man

would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner

suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's

bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts

each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to

eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare

their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to

the tenth man "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth

man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more

than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10

back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get

anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the

tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for

dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to

pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough

money between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax

system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are

those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being

wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots

of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

 

[sagegirl]

Merlin, points well taken. I couldnt agree more. I am not looking at this through rosey glasses. Thats why I ask the question, the campaign seems to be telling me that all these special government programs, no child left behind, affirmative action, on and on, are so important but then they tell us they will give us tax cuts to make us feel good. I say if they want to deliver the goods then they gotta tax us. We get plenty enough government for our bucks already, actually more than we can afford if you consider the huge deficit. Personally, I am not for all this government in our lives, the less the better. I am for each of us taking responsibility for ourselves, acting responsibly, and being left alone to make our own decisions as to what we want. As for the percentages for taxing I dont know alot about it, I do know that the really rich in this country are getting the most benefit from it, one might say the security to enjoy their wealth. When you are poor its a hard to rationalize the effort to make things better for somebody over in afghanistan , or whereever. It is hard for me to articulate how I feel about it...I consider myself to be middle class, not rich, and I know that I live better than a whole lot of people, but that has alot to do with lifestyle and priorities.

 

[MtnBiker]

Here is our tax system broken down "Barney Style"

That tenth man obviously was not John Kerry, with his tax percentage paid he would have been eating very cheaply.

 

[sagegirl]

What proportion do you believe they pay now?

I dont know, I know they can and do take advantage of loopholes, but then I see everyday folks take advantage when they can, where they can. I dont have any solutions I just like to bring up issues. I enjoy the process.

 

[drowe]

That tenth man obviously was not John Kerry, with his tax percentage paid he would have been eating very cheaply.

The above example works on the assumption that all ten guys are playing by the rules...unlike the senator. Kerry made more than Bush in 2003 yet paid less in taxes, seems odd to me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The above example works on the assumption that all ten guys are playing by the rules...unlike the senator. Kerry made more than Bush in 2003 yet paid less in taxes, seems odd to me.

According to John Kerry's own tax records (and he hasn't released all of them), he and Theresa had a combined income of $5.5 million dollars. Mind you, that is annual income; their estimated worth exceeds $500 million dollars. The Kerry's paid $704,227 of income tax, which is an effective tax rate of 12.8 percent.

Federal statistics list the average federal tax rate as 20 percent.

George W. and Laura Bush had about a tenth of the Kerry's income. They paid a tax rate of 30.4 percent.

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/oct264.html
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=13158788&PAG=461&rfi=9

 

[drowe]

So out of the above example we can ascertain:

Kerry is the guy you go to lunch with and when the bill arrives he says, "shit man I forgot my wallet". When in fact he's got two twenties in his pocket.

Do we really need a tool like that for president?

 

[Bonnie]

I see it both ways...we pay and we get something for what we pay for. What I wonder is why tax cuts are the issue....isnt the issue what they spend the money on. And if you dont think you receive alot of indirect or direct benefit from the taxes you pay, you arent paying attention. Please excuse the pun. And the rich have the most to loose thus they should pay proportionally.

Government is supposed to be a small safety net, not cradle to death perks. We have a situation in this country that involves an awful lot of fraud and waste. We could do a lot more with a lot less money.

Economically speaking less taxes means more businesses, more jobs, therefore more people contributing less each to the government, but overall more revenue going to the government.

 

[MissileMan]

Government is supposed to be a small safety net, not cradle to death perks. We have a situation in this country that involves an awful lot of fraud and waste. We could do a lot more with a lot less money.

Economically speaking less taxes means more businesses, more jobs, therefore more people contributing less each to the government, but overall more revenue going to the government.

Exactly! And I for one would like to see more emphasis placed on eliminating fraud and waste.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I dont know, I know they can and do take advantage of loopholes, but then I see everyday folks take advantage when they can, where they can. I dont have any solutions I just like to bring up issues. I enjoy the process.

nobody is saying what Kerry did (using loopholes) was illegal. It was perfectly legal. But when he says he wants to raise taxes on those making over $200k, then proceeds to pay a smaller percentage than most of the country, is hypocritical. He says the rich should pay mor taxes. Then why doesn't he?

What's really funny is that in Mass., there is an option to pay the higher tax amounts vs. the lower one on the tax forms. Guess which one Kerry chose?