Text 3705, 134 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 11:29:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4178.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <6dsta21u56v4jj55c2lmv3lg0uf9hpdjp9@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <8f9ga2d9jve406sk7nuoso4bar6sqsis8r@4ax.com>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:02:47 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jcroa2l5k1uebji9ttgoksu63or9k358u2@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:46:07 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> >Hmm....if a rate goes from 33 to 28, applies to all, then its across the
>> >board.
>> >Basic math
>>
>> Excep that as I pointed out below, it isn't basic math. What actually
>> happens is a good deal more complex.
>
>Apparently, all you point out below is that a 5% reduction on an income of,
>say 200,000 is greater than a 5% reduction on, say 80,000.

That's true, but that's not the half of it, when as I said is a good
deal more complex. Here it is again:

1. Federal taxes are cut in a way that disproportionately benefits the
rich (as above).

2. The Federal government takes in less money. This means that it a)
sends states less money and b) puts more mandates on states and
localities without funding, e.g., (to use one of many examples) the No
Child Left Behind Act, which has had a serious impact on state budgets
across the country.

3. States make up the shortfall by raising taxes. This is not
theoretical: look at what's happened to state taxes since the Federal
Government started cutting taxes under Reagan.

4. /State taxes are more likely than Federal to be regressive,/ which
is to say they hit the poor and middle class harder than the rich. For
example, tobacco and alcohol taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes
are all regressive. Thus when the states raise their tax burden to
make up for the reduced Federal taxes, the tax burden shifts even
further to the poor and middle class.

>> >> In fact, even if most of the money and benefits hadn't gone directly
>> >> to the rich, which is to say each rich taxpayer saved a /lot/ more
>> >> money on his tax bill than each middle class taxpayer, the actual
>> >> scenario was more like the following:
>> >
>> >Becuase....as I've pointed out, they pay more.
>>
>> Doesn't address what I said below, which is that this is /not/ an
>> across the board tax cut -- it's one that a) gives more tax relief to
>> the rich b) gives a disproportionate amount of the tax cuts to the
>> rich and c) very likely /increases/ the total tax burden as a
>> percentage of income on the poor and middle class.
>
>Well, you can believe that if y'like.

Dennis, that's no response.

>> >
>> >Guesstimates - ex: the Income tax was predicted to never grow to what its
>> >become,
>> >nor Social Security, nor Medicate, not even the pharmaceutical coverage.
>>
>> That last is because the Bush Administration misrepresented it.
>
>:-) Of course - its all Bush's fault. :-)

He's amazing, isn't he? :-)

Actually, I recall that in this case fiscal conservatives in his own
party were /very/ pissed off that the White House had lied about the
cost of the program.

>> socialism. So I don't think one can answer without examining the
>> entire economic picture, and the practical one: is this deficit
>> harmful or beneficial given current economic circumstances, are these
>> programs necessary or beneficial or wasteful from the perspective of
>> the economy and the national good, how does this tax increase or
>> decrease affect personal incentive, how does it affect our
>> competitiveness abroad, does the economy need more investment (reduce
>> capital gains and taxes on the rich) or demand (reduce taxes for
>> working people), how are people doing and how will this affect their
>> well-being (e.g., rich 210% richer after taxes, everyone else the same
>> over 30 years, lost of children growing up in poverty), etc. You just
>
>You keep bringing up these numbers - where do they come from?

All over the place. Can't find the chart that I got the 210% figure
from, which is too bad because I used to post the URL all the time,
but:

http://www.cbpp.org/814inc.htm

and

http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/

and

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=648

and

http://www.adaction.org/income05.htm

They all tell pretty much the same story, and in some cases it's
fairly shocking.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                               
           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)