Bush's gift to the middle class

[pevodog]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Fried JJ Pickles]

7, you just don't get it.

I'll patronize you. Hopefully this will be so simple you can understand it.

Government spends $2. Government taxes you $1. Where does that other dollar come from? Government issues a bond and Joe T Investor buys the bond, giving the government the extra $1 to spend. What happens when the bond is due? Government taxes you for the payout of the bond.

So instead of being taxed $2, you are taxed $1 now, and $2 later, for a total of $3.

There's absolutely no way around it. If the government is running a deficit, there is no tax cut. That deficit will eventually be paid by tax payers several times over.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[pevodog]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Anastasis]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Fried JJ Pickles]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Anastasis]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Wesser]

The real question that people should be asking is: who does Obama believe is rich v. middle class.

These are subjective terms. For instance, the Dems I know say I am rich. I don't feel that way. I still have financial difficulties here and there and I was cash strapped after my Dad passed away.

Point is, I think that we are in the middle class, which I define as families who require two incomes to pay the everyday bills and plan for a modest retirement. However, some say we am rich because I live in Lake Highlands and we are both attorneys.

Before we start talking about taxing the 'rich' and helping the 'middle class' aren't we going to try and create some measure of consensus about what those terms mean?

Perhaps the stimulus bill provides the guidance of the Washington mindset. Maybe they mean that family income of $150K is 'rich" and below you are 'middle class.' If so, that is complete and total ********. $150K is not a significant sum of money in the modern economy, especially in places like California where simple single level homes built in the 1960s can cost upwards of $600K.

My point is that they are moving the bar on who is in the middle class. I think I am in the middle class. Lots of people feel they are in the middle class. People feel that rich folks have no money concerns and live pigs in the fathouse. So when guys like Obama start talking about going after the "rich," you have no problem with that -- hell, they have no problems anyway!

Guess what, these guys might just think that you are 'rich' too, and after they come and take another 10% of your income, then you might have trouble paying your mortgage too and default on loans that you were able to comfortably pay before.

 

[7 Iron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[7 Iron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[accuratehorn]

Oh, my mistake-the child tax credit is a credit from the bottom line, not the adjusted gross income. You can tell I don't have kids-I just made a quick check of your figures. That would be a significant difference. Now I am getting $10,499 in 2000 and $5576 in 2007, pretty close to your figures.
I do my own taxes, but read the info a little more closely at that time.

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[7 Iron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bronco]

JJ- Not only does your grasp of economics not reach a basic level, the fact that you "patronize" another while being completely in over your head is amusing.

Tax levels do not correlate 1 to 1 to revenue. There are many tax theories (acknowledged by liberal and conservative leaning economists) that show that lower personal income tax rates actually INCREASE tax revenue and the reverse that increasing personal tax rates DECREASES tax revenue.

There is a really fine line to walk when dictating tax policy. Most would suggest that the govt has maximized REVENUE in the last few years. Maximized means there wouldn't be more if you changed the tax rates.

No one can accurately tell what might have been, but raising tax rates can very easily equal less tax revenue- which is bad.

Bush has certainly made mistakes with spending but he has gotten tax revenue right by most accounts.

 

[eflow24]

Tax cuts for the rich has always been nothing more than a talking point. GWB's tax cuts worked to help bring us out of a small recession and increased gov't revenue. The problem, that I readily acknowledge, is that there were not enough spending cuts to accompany them. However, that should be blamed on BOTH parties, not on GWB alone.

The GWB tax cuts did a lot for the middle class and made the poor pay basically NOTHING in taxes. Yes, the "rich" got what appeared to be a lion share, but they got less of a share of the tax cuts than they pay in taxes. Remember, the Top 50% of tax payers pay over 80% of the taxes in this country.

Furthermore, a war will almost always cause a country to run on a deficit. of course, the argument about the war will go on forever, the tax cuts took place before the war.

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Summerof79]

Actually Bush's war is the only war in our nation's history that I could find where every single cent was borrowed to pay for it. No sacrifice, no tax increase, no belt tightening of any kind... just more borrowing....

What's fun for me is to seethe same folks make the assinine argument that a reduction in revenue doesn't have ANYTHING to do with deficits. When of course it does.

And yes your shildren and grandchildren will be left to pay your tab PevoDog. As it's ALWAYS the best solution to borrow from our children for everything. here is the Bush mantra...Tax cuts good, huge debt good, huge deficits good, fiscal responsiblity.... why don't those Dems do something!....

 

[pevodog]

In reply to:

---

---