A Tax-Cut Analogy

I Own a Dictionary.

Refund : 1)To give back, 2) The act of refunding, 3)The amount refunded.

I don't quite gather the point you were trying to make with that.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

[This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

That is precisely why I never listen to you!


------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

 

If you pay a plumber . . . .does that not make it his money?

The government is nothing more than a paid
employee of the people. . .a service . . .
Sometimes it is like other service industries
OVER PAID . . .so you get a refund

to say HEY it's not the government's money is
like saying all the sh*t we get from the government is FREE

Military [that conservatives love so much]
Roads and highways?
Adminstrative etc.

It *is* the government's money
becuase like any company it provides a service
and to an extent some benefit from the service
more than others. . .therefore they pay more

If russia took over america . .. who looses more?
Rich or Poor?

Rocket River


------------------

 

Rocket River

------------------


[This message has been edited by Rocket River (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

I hope their are no Economists on this board but Economists and Meteorolgists are professional guessors who have the ability to explain after the fact what happened. Keeping that in mind I could care less what any economist says.
Further if the government is an employee of the people who the people must pay (like a plumber) does that mean people who pay more taxes should be able to use the services more or those that pay nothing should not be able to use the services? Of course not.
But they are funded by the people and any excess should be returned to those who paid in the surplus. The only argument is how much of a surplus there is. Conservatives want limited government where there is lower taxes and liberals want much more (aka everything) funded by the government.
Personally I am all for a tax cut. I know it won't be fair to everyone but there is nothing that is fair to everyone. A true flat-tax screws the lower end wage earners. There is not a perfect system but I would rather have everyone who paid something get something back. Better, IMO, than giving a credit (like the EIC) for possibly someone who hasn't paid any taxes anyways.

 

My, we certainly are sensitive this morning, aren't we?

I know you were referring to choosing among professional economists.

Two things I approve of in this Tax bill are the increase in child care deduction and the increase in the amount you can contribute to your IRA. However, the economists are very correct when they oppose Bush's tax relief package, especially since we now know that it...

--does nothing about the Alternative Minimum Tax, and actually greatly increases the number of Americans who will have to pay it:

1. 5.3 million in 2004, up to...
2. 13 million in 2005, then up to...
3. 40 million in 2010

Not to mention the fact that it does absolutely nothing about payroll taxes and the entire thing completely expires in the year 2010.

Anybody who calls this bill tax relief is fooling themselves. It is nothing more than political chicanery, something our appointed "President" has proven himself to be very adept at.



------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

 

But they are funded by the people and any excess should be returned to those who paid in the surplus. The only argument is how much of a surplus there is. Conservatives want limited government where there is lower taxes and liberals want much more (aka everything) funded by the government.

Actually, the difference here is that liberals (or at least, me) believe that the government has a responsibility to pay back the debt that they accumulated so that we can reduce future interest payments.

Conservatives (or at least, Bush) apparently believe that owing four trillion dollars is no big deal. Its short-sighted and irresponsible, in my opinion. It's the same as maintaining a huge credit balance, and when you get some extra money, using that instead of reducing your balance. This has nothing to do with additional spending for government services.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

but doesn't the Fed FORCE you to overestimate and thus overpay your due? You do no further documentation.

No. If you take your maximum number of exemptions on your W-4 (or whatever that form is that you must fill out when being hired) and you have no other income/deductions, you should end up with basically a $0 balance.

Many people claim fewer exemptions to ensure they have to pay nothing on Apr 15th, and thus get a larger refund as they have paid more taxes than necessary throughout the year.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

I don't see why you have so much trouble admitting that Bush's tax cut was, at the least, very ill-advised.

The man came up with the numbers before he had an advisory staff. It's not uncommon - both Bush and gore did it for social security. In 1992, Clinton did it over his plan for national healthcare. That's not unusual, although voters are stupid to be continually suckered in by it.

What IS unusual is that Bush actually went through with it. I guess, in a way, it's laudable that he's fulfilling a campaign promise.

The problem is, that promise was badly reasoned in the first place. There's no way his economic projections were going to be accurate. There was never any chance of that, unless he HONESTLY believed that we'd be having late 90's economic growth for the better part of the next two decades. Do you think he really believed that?

Now, once that was no longer the case, the ONLY responsible thing to do would have been to tone down the tax cut. There's no way you can have projections based on rapid growth that work with stagnation - or even moderate growth.

I'll agree with you that plenty of smart people probably worked on his plan - but they were given a faulty premise, and even a brilliant engineer can't build a castle on quick sand. Remember Hillary's proposal on Health care? That was truly well researched, and I bet you ridiculed it.

What I'm getting at, is that there's no way that tax cut was well-advised, if for nothing else than the faulty-projections, much less the methodology of arranging the budget once those projections failed.

Why can't you just concede this?



------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001



[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

RichRocket:

I do consider you biased; however, not so much as to dismiss your opinions. With posters like Bela, I generally feel provoked enough to reply once or twice, but once I'm no longer peeved, I cease to reply. While I think you're wrong, I feel that you have your reasons for thinking the way you do, and I think dialogue is possible to come to better understanding.

Arguing for the heck of it can be fun, but arguing when you see the other guy has a point is more fun, since there's something meaningful on the line instead of just "scoring points." I've enjoyed this.

I don't think there's much to say about the tax cut; I don't see how you can consider a PARTICULAR tax cut well-advised when it is based on outrageous projections... but hey, there are worse things than faith in people.
Until the next time there's a political spat...

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001