What Tax Cut?--We're still waiting for the first Bush tax cut phase-ins.

Wall St Journal ^ | May 12, 2003

[SJackson]

One of the more popular arguments against President Bush's tax proposal is that taxes were cut in 2001 and yet the economy is still sluggish, so why pass another one? "Two years ago Americans tried the approach advanced by the Administration and it simply hasn't worked," Tom Daschle said the other day. What we have here is some revisionist economic history.

[yeetch!]

Clearly stated and well thought out.

[GailA]

TN Reps John Tanner and Harold Ford JR both RATS voted NO to tax cuts. JUNIOR is being touted as a conservative..tanner says he's a blue dog dem...both vote party line.

[Commiewatcher]

"JUNIOR is being touted as a conservative.."

With a lifetime ACU rating of 16% he isn't fooling anyone around here. His 16% is by far the worst of the entire TN delegation.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree, partially. The majority of working class Americans gain very little with the dividends tax cut. Furthermore the majority of middle class Americans have more taken from their FICA and Social Security then they do from federal income tax so a tax cut if given at all should take place on FICA. For instance most people in the upper tax brackets do not pay what middle class people do in regards to FICA which of course makes sense since most in the $90,000 and up wage earners need less from Social Security. That being said Upper class does pick up most of the tax burden but when tax cuts come about who benefits the most? Well since most middle class pays mostly into FICA then they do Federal income tax the answer is easy. This is why I do not TOTALLY agree with the Bush tax cut because it benefits me and my family NADA. 550 million is a miniscule tax cut at best and it isn't even on the portion of taxes that would benefit me and my family.

[CMAC51]

Economically ignorant people such as yourself are one of the major reasons that our current tax structure is so fouled up. You are a complete and utter fool to believe that a tax cut does not affect you. You are in fact one of the people who benefits most from tax cuts.

From your commentary it is obvious that you are in the mid or lower income brackets. Each year you probably spend most of your disposable income with no or only a little going toward investment. Well for every nickel you spend, part of it is going to help pay someone elses tax burden. When you buy gas, part of the cost is the tax burden on the station owner. When you pay for your dry cleaning, you are covering the tax burden of the owner/operator. When their taxes go down, the price they can charge an remain competitive goes down.

The ugly truth about taxes that very few people are willing to acknowledge and address is that the tax burden falls hardest on the mid and lower income levels of a society. They are the portion of a society which uses the greatest proportion of their income for consumption rather than saving or investment. When you do that, you are effectively paying the tax burden (through higher prices) of the saving and investing portion of the society.

"A Tax Cut For The Rich", is one of the biggest oxymorons around. The rich get their money from savings and investments. When their tax burden is lowered, it means they need a lower net yield from those investments to prosper. The competitive nature of the market place will then result in lower prices to the consumer. The consumer is then able to spread their expenditures over more products which means more total sales. This increases the demand for goods, promoting productivity. Gains in productivity, producing more product for a lower cost, is what makes a society prosper. That type of prosperity is spread across the whole society, everyone gains.

The bottom line is that if you are living off the fruits of your own labor, anything that lowers the total tax burden benefits you. If you are in the upper segments of the lower income brackets or the lower segment of the middle income bracket, you should be screaming louder than anyone else for tax cuts. You are the person who will be helped the most.

[lone star annie]

YES you are exactly right. Most people can not see the macro in economics. Money left in the private sector is much more productive than any left in the public sector.

[familyofman]

Not a single mention of the constitutional Balanced Budget Ammendment being introduced again this week in both houses of Congress. The WSJ editorial page used to be a big supporter of this ammendment - have they lost their thirst for this cool drink from the fountain of economic theory, or are they too consummed with tax cuts to look at more than one idea at a time?

[raybbr]

To the WSJ: Did you notice that democrats lie?

Just wondering!!!!

[Grampa Dave]

This is pure socialist/communist drivel.

Whenever anyone whines about their share of FICA, they are really saying that they don't want to pay any of their share of FICA. They want the rest of America to pay for their Social Security payments in the future and to take over their contributions to FICA now.

One the first signs that a person is really a socialist freeloader pretending to be a conservative is the mantra "Reduce my payroll Taxes!' Cracking the code, they are really saying, "I want to spend that money on something else. I want someone else to pay for my future social Security Checks.

I have one response for these whiners: $crew you!

[dirtboy]

Whenever anyone whines about their share of FICA, they are really saying that they don't want to pay any of their share of FICA.

Two points of the FICA taxes go towards the so-called surplus, which is promptly spent. Has nothing to do with someone paying their share of Social Security, and it should be eliminated, giving a two-percent raise to anyone working in this country and making less than $70K a year. Or, one percent for the worker and one percent for the employer. Either way, it's an effective tax cut, IMO.

[Grampa Dave]

The lovers of illegal aliens and rats in congress push this no payroll tax all the time. That makes it totally suspect.

What you addressed is another evil that needs 60 senators to handle and take care of in 2005.

[dirtboy]

The lovers of illegal aliens and rats in congress push this no payroll tax all the time. That makes it totally suspect.

Actually, I'd love for them to keep pushing it, because it would be a de facto admission of the fraud that the so-called trust fund represents. And, it would be concrete tax relief for lower income workers.

What you addressed is another evil that needs 60 senators to handle and take care of in 2005.

I'm sure they'll come up with a way to push the day of reckoning off for another six years or so.

[Grampa Dave]

Well, for us, our children, our grandchildren, and on down the line, lets hope that they do address it.

The way it is set up now, it is just a hidden honey pot to dive into for funding special projects.

[AbsoluteJustice]

WHOA WHOA there grab a cappucino and chill out!!!!
Let me make it easier on you:

Every month I pay 680$$ in taxes Federal, FICA, local. I am struggling to purchase my first home and have a newborn and a lovely wife. I am middle clas thru and thru. You are correct I want to spend my money elsewhere, on a home which is also an investment. I am not one of those that you are speaking of that wants someone else to take care of me because I am sorry sir having been a Marine for 5 years NOONE take of ME but ME MYSELF!!! Never been unemployes and never have had to have ANYONE take care of me so your assumptions are TOTALLY WRONG!!! I am not a freeloader. One fact I do know though 1)If give HALF the money that I am taxed I would be in a home. 2)My father at my age when he had 2 children making the equivlelent of what I am today had a home and had no trouble with taxes. 3)Honestly you have to admit that the cost of living has FAR exceeded the annual earnings of people. People want RESULTS and your view on this issue does not fly with someone in west Texas struggling to put food in his famil's mouth and it is not as easy as you portray it to be. (I am not that person BTW just an example). The WHOLE tax code needs revamped. Socail security needs to be GONE, you talk socialist but want SS to remain? Talk about the largest socialist program that ever started in the history of the U.S.

[Fabozz]

"[H]ave they lost their thirst for this cool drink from the fountain of economic theory, or are they too consummed with tax cuts to look at more than one idea at a time?"

The Balanced Budget Amendment would eliminate the possibility of any future tax cuts ever again. The CBO is committed to static scoring, and that's never going to change, so under the tyranny of the BBA any tax cuts would have to be "paid for" by spending cuts—in other words, tax cuts would be "robbing the poor to pay the rich." This would absolutely play into the hands of the Democrats and RINOs, making tax cuts politically impossible.

The BBA made some sense back in the halcyon days of Reagan, when marginal tax rates were tolerable. After the economic perfidy of Bush the Elder and Clinton the Groper, combined with 20 years of inflation-induced bracket creep, marginal tax rates are now at downright Eurosocialist levels. (Russia has lower marginal tax rates than we do. That thought should make any conservative vomit.) Our number one priority must be bringing those rates down. Only after that has been accomplished can we consider freezing our economic policy in place with a constitutional amendment.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Correction 750$$ a month to taxes from me not including my wife.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Economically ignorant people such as yourself are one of the major reasons that our current tax structure is so fouled up."

Negative I have nothing to do with the tax code as it is written and only know the bottom line that a LARGE portion of my pay is given to the government.

"You are a complete and utter fool to believe that a tax cut does not affect you. You are in fact one of the people who benefits most from tax cuts."

I agree with you to a point that tax cuts do benefit me in PURCHASING PRODUCTS. What I WANT is more money in my POCKET, not from cheaper products but $$$$ in my wallet from less money taken from me each payday. I will then determine how I see fit to save/spend it.

"From your commentary it is obvious that you are in the mid or lower income brackets."
MID

"Each year you probably spend most of your disposable income with no or only a little going toward investment"

I invest

"Well for every nickel you spend, part of it is going to help pay someone elses tax burden. When you buy gas, part of the cost is the tax burden on the station owner. When you pay for your dry cleaning, you are covering the tax burden of the owner/operator. When their taxes go down, the price they can charge an remain competitive goes down. "

I totally agree but like I stated; I WANT more money to my pocket. Then by that I can decide which vendors in the marketplace have the most competitive prices out there. Although I do agree with your assessment of it and it does make sense.

"The ugly truth about taxes that very few people are willing to acknowledge and address is that the tax burden falls hardest on the mid and lower income levels of a society. They are the portion of a society which uses the greatest proportion of their income for consumption rather than saving or investment. When you do that, you are effectively paying the tax burden (through higher prices) of the saving and investing portion of the society."

Agree totally.

Will address rest later.

[Grampa Dave]

Well it sounds like you are not one of the 99.99999999999% of those wanting to get rid of the so called payroll tax because they want a free ride.

Out here in California everyone who pushes this wants a free ride for themselves and illegal aliens.

You are overtaxed and should welcome any program that reduces taxes. If you have a 401k or IRA or plan to have one, you had better pray for eliminating the double taxing of the dividends.

Before Reagan cut the tax rates it was harder back in the years of Johnson, Carter to save money for a down payment for a home. I know, I was there.

[familyofman]

"The Balanced Budget Amendment would eliminate the possibility of any future tax cuts ever again. The CBO is committed to static scoring, and that's never going to change, so under the tyranny of the BBA any tax cuts would have to be "paid for" by spending cuts..."
The BBA would not eliminate future tax cuts - it would require serious budget restraint & lower spending. The current levels of spending are far to high, and by lowering spending you can get to lower taxes.
There are a number of areas of the federal budget that could/should be slashed or cut entirely; farm subsidies (we pay people not to plant crops), oil depletion allowance, accelerated depreciation, stock options being deductible, waste in the defense budget (they can't account for what they get), NEA, Dept. of Ed., HUD. If we quit feeding the beast & make Congress rsponsible for what & how they spend our money - we can have significant taxcuts.