Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's a column about why tax cuts can be a good thing. It's a truism that tax cuts almost never "cost" the government as much as projected, and tax increases almost never raise the amount projected, and the 2003 cut to the capital gains rate reinforced that idea. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200601270946.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ nrof_luskin/luskin200601270946.asp</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The issue for me is not whether or not the tax cut "costs" the government or not. The issue is with how it is distributed. How much savings from the reduction in Capital Gains tax went to families with incomes under $30,000? I'm not opposed to all tax cuts. Just those that are usually proposed by Republicans.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Republican tax cuts are those that benefit the already wealthy because everyone knows...you can't be too rich. And the poor aren't poor enough.
Originally Posted By cmpaley In all seriousness, it seems that there's something that's never discussed...how low is too low? The Laffer Curve says that, in theory, collecting too much is the same as collecting too little and that there is optimal rate where the maximum amount of revenue will be received. What is that point? Who will pay the most (I think it will be the poor and middle class in the form of lost public services and higher fees and taxes)? What people need to realize is that these tax cuts that benefit the already wealthy do not result in more jobs for them, just more money for the already wealthy to hoard. Has anyone noticed that the quality and quanitity of public services has deteriorated over the past six or seven years? Anyone notice that your local and state taxes generally go up in order to try to keep up with what the Feds are cutting. Californians, as an example, STILL pay much more in Federal taxes the they receive back in funding to their state and in services...and California has been suffering because of it. But it's all good because the already wealthy get their taxes cut while the middle class and working poor get a mere pittance. Remember, the income tax rate may be reduced on the middle class and working poor, but the truth is, the wealthy pay a much smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class and working poor because payroll taxes aren't paid on income over a certain amount. Interesting fact, that.
Originally Posted By patrickegan You might want to recheck that fact. I think SDI tops out at $79K but that’s it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How much savings from the reduction in Capital Gains tax went to families with incomes under $30,000?> I don't know. How much of the capital gains tax was paid by families with incomes under $30,000?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Republican tax cuts are those that benefit the already wealthy because everyone knows...you can't be too rich. And the poor aren't poor enough.> Republicans are for tax cuts because they know that money works better when in the hands of individuals, not government. And the truth is that most of difference between the "rich" and the "poor" is a matter of age and location. Those who have been working for twenty to thirty years tend to have higher incomes than those who are just out of school, and those who live on the coasts make more money than those in the middle. Most of those who are "poor" now will someday be "rich", and most of those who are now "rich" started out "poor".
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>You might want to recheck that fact. I think SDI tops out at $79K but that’s it.<< What does that have to do with anything?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What does that have to do with anything?> I think he's saying that the medicare tax is paid on all earned income.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>And the truth is that most of difference between the "rich" and the "poor" is a matter of age and location. Those who have been working for twenty to thirty years tend to have higher incomes than those who are just out of school, and those who live on the coasts make more money than those in the middle. Most of those who are "poor" now will someday be "rich", and most of those who are now "rich" started out "poor".<< I'm not talking about most people who are working. Most people who are working aren't rich, no matter how long they work. Heck, from what I've seen, most people take pay CUTS when they go from one job to another. And since there's no such thing as job security (don't most people end up losing their jobs due to downsizing in rather short order (less than a year or two) these days?), that means people tend to be downwardly mobile, not the other way around. Of course, if you have some kind of information (not something linked from nationalreview or opinionjournal or a right wing think tank, please) that says otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it...but I think it's a rare thing for people to move up the ladder in this economy.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><What does that have to do with anything?> I think he's saying that the medicare tax is paid on all earned income.<< SDI is not Medicare Tax. In California, it's the State Disability Insurance premium that everyone pays.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Heck, from what I've seen, most people take pay CUTS when they go from one job to another. And since there's no such thing as job security (don't most people end up losing their jobs due to downsizing in rather short order (less than a year or two) these days?), that means people tend to be downwardly mobile, not the other way around. Of course, if you have some kind of information (not something linked from nationalreview or opinionjournal or a right wing think tank, please) that says otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it...but I think it's a rare thing for people to move up the ladder in this economy.> So you'll believe what you believe, even though you've got no evidence that it's true, and you'll reject any evidence that doesn't come from an approved source. Check.
Originally Posted By patrickegan "payroll taxes aren't paid on income over a certain amount" SS cut’s off at $76K but I am unaware of any federal withholding cut off.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I did a little checking and you are correct, Doug, there is no wage base limit on Medicare Tax (which is 1.45%). There is, however, a wage base limit on the Social Security Tax (which is 6.2% up to $90,000). In California SDI is 0.8%. The point I'm making is that for everything after $90,000, there's an automatic 6.2% tax cut already. Add the massive tax cuts that Bush is giving the already wealthy and we're talking about a system that's blatantly geared to benefit the already wealthy. Add all the cuts in services that the middle class and working poor use (like educiation, child care assistance, financial aid to college students, medical assistance for children, etc.) and we can really begin to see who the Bush administration is about servicing.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>So you'll believe what you believe, even though you've got no evidence that it's true, and you'll reject any evidence that doesn't come from an approved source. Check.<< No, I want nonbiased sources. Right wing opinion is not information or a reputable source.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><SDI is not Medicare Tax.> I did not say it was.<< Huh? eagan said: >>You might want to recheck that fact. I think SDI tops out at $79K but that’s it.<< To which I asked: >>What does that have to do with anything?<< To which YOU said: >>I think he's saying that the medicare tax is paid on all earned income.<< How does eagan's bringing up SDI lead you to mention medicare tax if you weren't confusing the two?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"payroll taxes aren't paid on income over a certain amount" SS cut’s off at $76K but I am unaware of any federal withholding cut off.<< No, it's $90,000 this year. Last year it was $87,900 and next year it will be $94,200. <a href="http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=215&p_created=956064531&p_sid=7qfeGO-h&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjYmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuNyZwX3BhZ2U9MQ" target="_blank">http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cg i-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=215&p_created=956064531&p_sid=7qfeGO-h&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjYmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuNyZwX3BhZ2U9MQ</a>**&p_li=&p_topview=1 And if you mean withholding of Federal Income Tax, no, there is no cutoff because INCOME TAX is taxed at certain percentages with no upper limit. The percentages, according to a payroll calculator spreadsheet I have access to (it's on the California Controller's website) are: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35% and 31%. One thing to note...the highest tier is taxed at a rate LOWER than the two tiers below it...tax cuts for the rich, demonstrated on the spreadsheet that is based on how the California Controllers Office computes pay for State employees.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The point I'm making is that for everything after $90,000, there's an automatic 6.2% tax cut already. Add the massive tax cuts that Bush is giving the already wealthy and we're talking about a system that's blatantly geared to benefit the already wealthy.> There's a difference between "the wealthy" and those earning high incomes. High income taxes don't really affect the truly wealthy because they're not earning regular income. That said, a good tax system shouldn't be geared to benefit the wealthy. It should, however, reward investment and hard work, because that creates the economic environment that benefits all. <Add all the cuts in services that the middle class and working poor use (like educiation, child care assistance, financial aid to college students, medical assistance for children, etc.) and we can really begin to see who the Bush administration is about servicing.> What cuts in services? As far as I can tell, all those things you mentioned have had their budgets increased in the last 5 years. <No, I want nonbiased sources.> So what that I said are you disagreeing with? <How does eagan's bringing up SDI lead you to mention medicare tax if you weren't confusing the two?> He mentioned a tax that he thought topped out. I mentioned a tax that doesn't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Actually, Douglas, I agree with you on this one. (Don't faint!) Money IS better spent when government is kept smaller and individuals aren't being taxed like crazy. Tax cuts are a good thing in general. Unfortunately, the disconnect comes when you have a Republican-controlled government like we currently do that seems to want to do two things at once -- expand the government, spend billions per month on Iraq, AND cut taxes. You know as well as I do that results in more dept and deficits. Yes, I know you'll want to respond with something like "the Democrats would be worse" but you are a smart guy and know that with the meter running on this war and more and more government expansion is a recipe for fiscal disaster. Why let this bunch off the hook for the financial mess they're making longterm?
