Great point. For every dollar that Bush and his cronies rebate to the rich, that is a dollar that will have to be made up by the middle class.
The problem with that statement is that tax rates dropped across the board. This notion that it was a tax cut just for the rich is based on nominal dollars. Person A makes $5 a year and pays $1 in tax. The tax cut makes it so they pay $0.75 in tax. Person B makes $100 a year and pays $20 in tax. The cut makes it so they pay $15 in tax. Person A had their taxes cut by $0.25 and Person B had their taxes cut by $5. Must be a tax cut for the rich. Nobody wants to talk about the FACT that these cuts took the lowest income taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely. That's right. They now pay NO TAX.
Those people pay no INCOME tax, which was the smallest part of their tax burden to start with. Besides, the part that I am upset about is that since we have enacted this income tax, the rich have seen their tax rate drop by over 2/3 while the rest of us have not seen our rate drop at all (there was excellent documented analysis in a Krugman article a few months back). Add to that the FACT that for every dollar cut, another dollar has come out of the middle class in other ways. This year, my insurance went up because the state of Texas made huge cuts to state employee benefits. That amounted to a tax increase for me and was a direct result of the massive drop in funding that Texas got from Washington because of the tax cut. If you want to talk about how this was a tax cut for the rich, I will dig up that Krugman article, but suffice to say that IF a tax cut was warranted, it should not have been so heavily weighted toward the wealthy, but that is why they paid for his (s)election, so that they would get a dividend from the government. During the campaign, Bush said over and over that "by far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to the middle and lower classes," a claim that is patently untrue. You are welcome to make your "Person A, Person B" analogies all you like, but based on hard numbers and facts, the rich made out like bandits on this tax cut (as they do on ALL tax cuts) while I am taking pay cuts and having all my costs increase. When you look at the real numbers, your analogy falls to pieces.
I submit that a good part of your plight has little to do with the Bush tax cut and has a lot more to do with the fact that the state of Texas has been uniquely inept at managing the budget for decades. Now those problems are coming home to roost. OF COURSE the wealthy benefit most from all tax cuts. That is simply because they pay more taxes to begin with. So if you look at it in nominal dollars, the rich get the biggest benefit. However, if you look at a percentage of the tax bill, I would say the poor who now pay no taxes get the biggest cut.
OF COURSE the wealthy benefit most from all tax cuts. That is simply because they pay more taxes to begin with. So if you look at it in nominal dollars, the rich get the biggest benefit. However, if you look at a percentage of the tax bill, I would say the poor who now pay no taxes get the biggest cut. Analyses have shown that a larger burden of taxes now falls on the poor and middle classes than did in 2000. I would guess the reason is that while the federal progressive income tax is reduced, it's being replaced by local and state regressive taxes (most states have had tax increases to cover the things that Washington is no longer funding)... that means overall, the burden is shifted towards the lower-income individuals. The poor who already paid no income taxes now have higher sales taxes, for example, to offset the income tax cuts that didn't benefit them.
But workers really love the tax cuts- From Tapped- (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/) "NO SPEAK ENGLISH." This is a very funny -- and telling -- anecdote from Newsday's Paul Vitello, who took in President Bush's recent economic speech in Bay Shore, New York. President George W. Bush arrived on schedule. He gave his speech. He moderated a panel of five people on a makeshift stage in front of a sign that said "Strengthening America's Economy." He wove their stories seamlessly into the fabric of his re-election campaign. He engaged in self-deprecating humor that even a detractor might find charming. And then he left -- to a standing ovation -- shaking hands all the way to the exit door of U.S.A. Industries in Bay Shore, where his campaign made this first of three stops on Long Island yesterday. Security people kept reporters from interviewing the workers at U.S.A. until the president was on the way to his next stop. But when workers were finally interviewed -- these people who made up the bulk of the president's cheering audience in New York -- Bush's performance turned out to be, if anything, even more impressive. "No speak English," said the first worker, smiling apologetically. "No speak English," said the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth workers way-laid in the crowd. But you think the tax cuts should be made permanent, as he says? "Sorry, no English," said another. It is possible that President Bush could have drawn a crowd of several hundred at lunchtime on the streets of Bay Shore to cheer his economic policies, which can be summed up in two words: tax cuts. But if that crowd is ready-made -- the work force of a small auto parts factory whose owner has received tax breaks from the Republican-run state and town governments, and who employs large numbers of non-English speaking immigrants happy to work for $6 to $9 an hour with few benefits -- why bother? Now, if the president had dusted off his rusty Spanish and delivered his speech in a language his audience could understand, he might have gotten a different reaction. Kind of reminds me of the time in 2001 when GOP personnel recruited a couple of dozen corporate lobbyists to serve as the audience for a Dennis Hastert speech praising Bush's first income tax. A memo to the lobbyists stated: [T]he Speaker's office was very clear in saying that they do not need people in suits. If people want to participate -- AND WE DO NEED BODIES -- they must be DRESSED DOWN, appear to be REAL WORKER types, etc. We plan to have hard hats for people to wear. Other groups are providing waiters/waitresses, and other types of workers. Classic.
I again point to the fact that Texas is having to come to grips with the mismanagement of their budget which has existed for decades. Funny how inefficencies become crises once the Feds aren't doling out money. It's kinda like when Mom and Dad quit giving their college kid spending money. The states and municipalities will have to find a way to do things efficiently and with less waste. The American people are taxed to the gills...it has reached a breaking point.
That is simply untrue. The wealthiest one percent pay the largest percentage of taxes! And they are still not paying their fair share, eh?
Exactly. Govt thinks that because there is less money, they can label it a "crisis," talk about how kids will starve and try to raise our taxes. Nothing makes me more angry. When I make less money, I have to tighten the fiscal belt and do the same with less. If our nation was functioning correctly, they would not need to be on the Federal dole because that money would never make it to Washington to be parcelled out and have some skimmed off the top.
That is simply untrue. The wealthiest one percent pay the largest percentage of taxes! And they are still not paying their fair share, eh? If you'd been paying attention, I was referring to share of the total tax burden, not simply income taxes. And unless you actually show those graphs as compared to their income, its worthless. If the top 5% of wage-earners pay 53% of the income taxes but make 60% of the income, then it would be disproportionately low.
Something to ponder, Refman. From the Austin American-Statesman: Editorial Texas can't keep shifting public costs to local governments Editorial Board Saturday, March 13, 2004 Gov. Rick Perry has proposed making it far more difficult for local governments, including school districts, to raise property taxes. This might make some sense if the state were also prepared to raise state taxes and send far more -- billions more -- to school districts and local governments. But there's no sign of that yet. There's a reason property taxes keep going up: Texas keeps growing and people keep expecting government to provide police, firefighters, ambulances, parks, recreation centers, swimming pools, public health clinics, streets and highways, traffic lights, libraries, municipal courts, and water and sewage lines, not to mention public schools, hospitals and community colleges. That not only means hiring more people but borrowing more money for the up-front investment in infrastructure. There's another reason property taxes keep going up, one the governor and the Legislature don't like to talk about: State government keeps shoving more and more of its own costs onto local governments and school districts. In 1980, the state picked up about 54 percent of the cost of public education; now it pays for only 38 percent. The costs didn't go away -- that's billions of dollars shifted to local property taxes. Another example is starting to show up in public hospital emergency rooms supported by local property taxes: children whose medical care had been covered by the state and federally funded Children's Health Insurance Program, which was cut last year by the Legislature to balance the state budget. This week, the Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance was told that it would take between $5 billion and $8 billion of additional state money to cut local school property taxes by one-third to one-half. It said the money could be raised with a higher state sales tax on more consumer services, higher sin taxes, a new business activity tax and new gambling initiatives. But there's concern that, if school district property taxes dropped significantly because of an infusion of new state aid, school districts and local governments would effectively cancel them out by raising their own taxes. Maybe some would try it -- but only at great political risk. There's already a mechanism in state law to allow voter referendums if a local government raises property taxes by more than 8 percent, and, of course, school board members, city council members, county commissioners and the like have to run for re-election. As state Sen. Florence Shapiro, a Republican and former mayor of Plano, put it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "I have a problem with the state government coming in and telling local municipalities who have their own elected officials what they should and should not be doing." Before the governor and the Legislature start messing with the finances of local governments, they should clean up their own. And dumping more costs on local governments and schools doesn't count as cleaning up.
This is the Texas Republican's version of "starve the beast" of public education, local police, fire, swimming pools and public libraries. It is indeed interesting. Can't give Federal money since it is a local matter but must keep the locals from raising their own taxes.
Apparently they can't offer enough money to attract qualified applicants in these fields. I'm too old to be drafted but maybe some of you aren't. But it would be a job. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL 'Special skills draft' on drawing board Computer experts, foreign language specialists lead list of military's needs Eric Rosenberg, Hearst Newspapers Saturday, March 13, 2004 Washington -- The government is taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages. The Selective Service System has begun the process of creating the procedures and policies to conduct such a targeted draft in case military officials ask Congress to authorize it and the lawmakers agree to such a request. Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said planning for a possible draft of linguists and computer experts had begun last fall after Pentagon personnel officials said the military needed more people with skills in those areas. "Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam," Flahavan said. "But they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he would not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is likely far off. A targeted registration and draft is "is strictly in the planning stage," said Flahavan, adding that "the whole thing is driven by what appears to be the more pressing and relevant need today" -- the deficit in language and computer experts. "We want to gear up and make sure we are capable of providing (those types of draftees) since that's the more likely need," the spokesman said, adding that it could take about two years to "to have all the kinks worked out. " The agency already has in place a special system to register and draft health care personnel ages 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis. According to Flahavan, the agency will expand this system to be able to rapidly register and draft computer specialists and linguists, should the need ever arise. But he stressed that the agency had received no request from the Pentagon to do so. The issue of a renewed draft has gained attention because of concerns that U.S. military forces are over-extended. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes, U.S. forces have fought two wars, established a major military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and are now taking on peacekeeping duties in Haiti. But Congress, which would have to authorize a draft, has so far shown no interest in renewing the draft. . . . Funny thing is, they discharged a large percentage of their current language experts because they were gay...
