Tax Cuts Only Benefit the Rich?

[BushRocks]

This From the WSJ Opinion Journal: (http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008889)

One sure sign that the economy is doing well is when the left revives that old political warhorse, inequality. With GDP growth of nearly 4% for three years running and a jobless rate of 4.7%, it's their last economic resort in an election year. But when you look at the actual evidence, the inequality campaign also proves to be trumped up.

The Treasury Department will soon release the latest IRS data on who paid how much in taxes in America through 2004. We've had an early look at the numbers, and anyone who reads the front pages of our leading dailies may be surprised to learn that the Bush years compare very well by tax and income equality to the sainted Clinton era.

First, the new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income--U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389--paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.

By contrast, Americans with an income in the top 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes in 2004, down slightly from 37.4% at what was the height of the dot-com boom in 2000. But the top 5% and 10% of earners saw an increase in their tax share over that same period, with the top 5%'s share rising to 57.1% in 2004 from 56.5% in 2000. If this isn't the definition of a highly "progressive," a k a redistributionist, tax code, we don't know what is.

Between 2002 and 2004, the income tax share of the top 0.1% of earners rose to 17.4% from 15.4%. A reasonable conclusion is that much of this increase reflects tax payments on capital gains and dividends--which have soared by an astounding 79% and 35%, respectively, since the rate cuts.


Hmm....Why doesn't this good information ever get out?!

[IHL]

This information does get out, but it is ignored by the media unless it is bad news. It just is - there is no two ways about it.

This article proves that the tax cuts work. I shows that the whole rhetoric about "tax cuts for the rich" is simply a lie.

People will read the facts and dismiss them in favor of their emotional feelings of 'get the evil rich'. You have to remember - liberalism is based almost entirely in feelings and emotion and very little in facts and logic. That may sound like simply a stereotypically description of liberalism but it is absolutely true.

They ignore articles like this that are based in fact and numbers and instead hang on to the emotional reaction that the rich are somehow evil and the George Bush is simply paying off his rich friends. The truth is that tax cuts help everyone, it just takes a little more brains to understand how.

[earthtoned]

i could care less about whether the rich are getting richer. ultimately what matters the most is whether the average american is doing better or worse. the latest census bureau information indicates they are doing worse, for a whole list of reasons. The american economy is doing pretty darn well right now, but why arent average americans benefiting from this?

– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.

– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

– For full-time, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.

– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.

all these numbers are taken from the US census bureau latest publication on income, poverty and health insurance;

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

you can blame the media all you want, but when just 32% of americans believe the economy is improving (a misnomer) it is based on their own hardships, and lack of benefit from this rising tide that is supposed to raise all boats, but only seems to raise the yachts.

the economy is working, its just not working for them

[Wadi66]

– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.but what the information doesn't tell you is that most people reject the option of having insurance. And of that 46.6% how many are self employed? How many are illegal workers? How many are part time workers, part/full time students?
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.So? Are you in favor of forcing people? Health insurance is not a right.
– For full-time, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.The median income is an average. So with millions of baby boomers making top dollars in their advancing age (and driving up the average) is it any wonder that young folks starting out in a career would be making below the average? People forget about the across the board impact of babyboomers.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.absolute direct correlation to the above. duh.........

The wallet is the best indicator. And yes its awfully hard to say the economy is improving when soaring gas prices impact every part of our lives. Its a good thing the tide came in though, or we'ld all be sunk.

[BushRocks]

soaring gas prices

And let's all remember that President Bush can't do more than he can do in regards to gas prices. And it's the market people! Don't mess with the market or the market will mess with you!

I'm tired of the evening news stations portraying gas prices as if they were saying: "It's $3.00 a gallon! Thank you President Bush!"

Liberals, find some new tactics...They make me puke.

[IHL]

Since they focus on class envy by claiming that the gap between the rich and the poor is due to social policy rather than talent and effort, the Dems will never solve the "problem"Well said, and exactly the problem.

The government isn't here to provide health care. And the number of uninsured is a bad measure.

Even if the median income has decreases slightly, they pay less tax and ultimately have more of their own money left over. Not to mention more money in their retirement and investment accounts since those are taxed at a lower rate also.

Interest rates are historically low. Unemployment is very low. Taxes are down, investment is up. You can certainly find cases and examples of people who aren't doing well. That seems to be the job of the media and many liberals. But raising the minimum wage isn't the way to solve the problem. And the main point of the article is that tax cuts work, but almost any measure you want to use.

The economy may not be working for everyone, it never will. If you start giving away things so the 'poor' do better, you are doing it at the expense of those that actually work to achive it. You can't just throw money at people. The Democrats have been trying that forever and it has never worked. You need to give people incentive to do well. The incentives are out there.

[earthtoned]

youre preaching to the converted on much of this IHL, but i do have a problem with simply dismissing the lack of earnings growth. when the GDP is growing at around 3 percent, i don't think it is outrageous to expect that the common man reap some sort of benefit.

futhermore, as everybody knows, the economy has a natural cycle. now are supposed to be the good times, where people theoretically are able to make enough to save money to get them through the recessions that inevitably occur. and yet, personal debt is at an all time high (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050808/8debt.htm), bankruptcies at an all time high (http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/24/pf/personal_bankruptcies/index.htm), their savings rate at an all time low (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/BUG5JE423K1.DTL) while medical and education costs are skyrocketting. if these are the good times, i'd hate to see the bad

surely alot of this is as much the fault of poor spending habits etc, but either way it doesnt bode well. when things really do slow down, wait and see how many foreclosures there are on all those homes people bought with adjustable rate mortgages.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm110

[Wadi66]

ET, the government simply can not be held accountable for people's poor choices. Americans have no idea what "poverty" is. The poor may not have everything they want, but the poorest among us has 100 times more than those in third world countries.

Being "poor" only identifies those with little or no ambition. Granted there are those who honestly can't help themselves, and those are the ones who'll always be taken care of. But please don't ask me to feather the bed of someone who won't do all they can to improve their lot in life.

Golly gee whiz, they chose to not get additional training, they chose to get hooked on drugs, they choose to abuse their bodies by the food they eat, they choose to spend more than they make, they choose, they choose, they choose. There is no excuse to "not knowing". There is no excuse for not being the best you can be. As long as I extend a helping hand giving them what they need, there is no need on their part to strive for more.

[earthtoned]

and wadi, this is exactly what the debate boils down to, one where i clearly come down a bit to your left....but i was just commenting to the original post on this thread, and the claim that the poor or middle class are benefiting from the bush tax cuts. i dont believe they have in any meaningful way.

[Wadi66]

ET how do you want them to "benefit"?

[earthtoned]

got a few hours?

no, i'll keep it brief:

education is my number one priority on this issue. our schools, particulary inner city and low income areas, are abysmal. A poorly educated population affects our future economy, crime rate, and their ability to contribute as productive citizens to society. generally schools are paid for through local property taxes, so it shouldnt come to much surprise that schools in low income areas are awful.. honestly, i don't think most kids that grow up in these areas and go to these schools have a glimmer of hope. i would gladly pay higher taxes if i knew it went towards improving these facilities, and increasing the pay of those brave enough to try teaching in these areas. I have a good friend that taught in inner city oakland california for 2 years, and that was all he could take, especially for the lousy compensation. his job entailed 90% disciplining, 10% teaching. not much learning going on there. no, i dont think you can just throw money at it, but id guess any effective reforms arent free. also higher education. california has a fantastic and affordable public college system, but not all states do. a high school degree just doesnt hack it anymore.

also, medical costs have to be brought under control. i'm open to any suggestions on this one, but i think there was a decent discussion on a thread here a few weeks back.

[Peace_by_superior _power]

Et more people are in poverty and yet we have increased spending for welfare (all programs) to equal about 5% of the gdp, you tell me whats failing the people.

as for your post bush rocks your point can be made simply by asking have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? exactly when there is more capital with people who can invest it wisely and efficently there is a greater growth for the country.

[Wadi66]

Education is important. However it would be incorrect to imply that all "poor" people come from the inner cities.

People just need to accept the fact that where there's the will, there's a way. Period. So if someone doesn't have much, it because they don't want it enough to do what it takes to get it. It sounds cold but its a fact of life.

Back to education for a minute. The best teacher in the world will not reach those who don't want to learn. It all comes back to motivation. Yes circumstance has an influence, but people move mountains when the mountain stands in the way of what they want.

[Dr. Madd]

I want- no, I defy- Anyone to tell me why giving money that belongs to people back to those people is BAD!

[earthtoned]

this is the ideological difference between most true conservatives and liberals, Wadi. i grew up in a fairly affluent neighborhood in a boston suburb. I went to a public school system that was populated by truly inspirational and demanding teachers, and students that were expected by their family and friends alike to succeed. It never crossed my mind that i would skip a class or blow off homework. nobody around me was. it never occured to me that i had a choice about going to college. it was what was expected of us. if i subtracted that influence and expectation, and instead replaced it with the low expectations that are part of living in a slum, going to school side by side with drug dealers and gang bangers, i have no idea where i would be today. I have no doubt in the world that there are some people that are so strong willed that they could have faught against those odds, and im sure they do every day. but statistically? most people follow the path of least resistance. If their buddy tells them they made a quick 10 G's selling crack downtown, while driving around in a blinged out mercedes, it sure sounds alot better to a 17 year old mind than flipping burgers for minimum wage. when your daddy is in jail, he's not going to be much of a rolemodel. these are the influences they face. some beat them some dont. personally, i'd like to make an investment in them before theyre ruined. i don't care if its an inspirational social worker, a "big brother", a preacher, YMCA... I'll glaly pay a little now so i don't have to pay for their stint in juvenile hall. I'll pay a little now so i don't have to foot the cost of raising their illegitimate baby . I'll pay a little now, so they don't end up stealing my car to pay for their drug habit. i'll pay a little now so i don't have to pay for the 20 years of hard time they put in at the state penn, so they can turn into the hardened criminal that is a blight on our society when they are released. many states are now spending more money on prisons than universities. I would love to see a re-allocation of that money towards adressing the negative influences and pressures that turn kids into criminals in the first place. if thats seen as a dodge of personal responsibility, then i guess thats what i am. I just dont see how it isnt obvious that kids growing up with no positive role models will emulate the poor roll models they are given.

[Wadi66]

but statistically? most people follow the path of least resistance. If their buddy tells them they made a quick 10 G's selling crack downtown, while driving around in a blinged out mercedes, it sure sounds alot better to a 17 year old mind than flipping burgers for minimum wage. And that right there is why all the money in the world isn't going to help those who don't want help.

I get the strangest feeling this discussion has evolved from an economics report not being all that great in your estimation to the need to help inner city kids more.

Don't feel guilty because you have more than others. You paid the price to get it. You already possess the ingredients necessary to better yourself, something not everyone has.

I see it in all walks of life at all income levels. I see kids being handed college tuition by their parents in hopes the kids will get motivated to make something of themselves. It just doesn't work that way. The motivation comes from within.

Inner city kids have positive role models to fashion themselves after. Dad may not be in the home, but not all kids who live in poverty are black and most of them don't have Dad's in the home either.

ET poverty isn't confined to black children of single moms. Poverty is universal and it all has to do with personal motivation. We can blame all the external influences we want but personal motivation is where the rubber meets the road.

I'll tell you the real difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think helping the down and out will change how that person is. A conservative has already tried it or seen it done and finally admitted the approach doesn't work.

Tough love isn't just a saying.

[BushRocks]

Very good post Wadi. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[earthtoned]

I get the strangest feeling this discussion has evolved from an economics report not being all that great in your estimation to the need to help inner city kids more. well, you did ask...
ET how do you want them to "benefit"?
I'll tell you the real difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think helping the down and out will change how that person is. A conservative has already tried it or seen it done and finally admitted the approach doesn't work. and i have come to believe this myself to some extent, if perhaps not as staunchly as you have. by the time we reach adulthood, ones habits and work ethic become quite difficult to alter. But this is precisely why ive concluded that the best opportunity we have to affect the lives of those most at risk to fail, (which just happens to statistically be the poor across all demographics), is by getting to them while they are young and impressionable.

It would be wonderful if we could all be Abe lincoln, self-taught self-driven and gifted with a clear vision of our own potential, but as a senior senator once said to me, " I knew Abe Lincoln, and You are no Abe Lincoln"...

...or did i dream that?

[Guns R Cool]

The only way to help someone in need is to completely remove them from their original enviroment. You can give help and money to a poor kid, but when he goes back home, he will come back exaclty the same the next day. Granted, there are a few kids who truly wanted to change.

There is this guy name Mike in my high school. He's black. He's from the inner city. He has no dad. His mom is a drug addict. He has no future. Actually I should say 'had.' My neighbors decided to let him come live with them. On the last day of school last year, he went to their house, instead of his mom's. He has never gone back. The neighbors have a son who's a junior. Mike is a 19 year old senior. He was in suspension for about a third of the school days last year. He seemed to be a lost cause. I knew him. I played football and track with him. I had classes with him. He was a good kid. Never did drugs or anything. You could tell he had a good heart. He was just born in the wrong place at the wrong time. That all changed on the last day of school last year. He now as a job. He just bought himself a car to transport himself. He is living in the basement of my neighbor's. He buys everything himself. He is completely independent. My neighbors could have sent him thousands of dollars and it would have been for nothing. But, providing him with a place to sleep, free from the corruption of his mother, he was able to change his life. This would not have been possible if he had continued to remain in his original enviroment.

I agree with what you say ET. Get them while they're young. But we can't help those who don't want our help. We can't help those unless we give 100% effort. Mike wanted to change. My neighbors truly tried to help. That is why he is now a success story instead of another black kid lost in the fold.

[Dr. Madd]

For some Reason, however, the Liberals seem to have it in their heads that they cannot help one group without putting the screws to another. They blame those who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps for having what they worked their butts off to acquire. They cannot understand the concept of a hand up rather than a hand-out. Personally, I think they ought to send the army, or "hit squads" to clear out the drug-dealers, pimps and gangstas out of the slums and keep them there as Regulators until the honest people turn the place back into civilization.

[Wadi66]

ET if I seem staunch in my belief its only because of years of exposure. When I first became politically active I held many of the thoughts you hold. Not all of them are wrong, mostly innocent and miss guided. And certainly well intended. But trying to implement the changes desired through what seems a logical avenue, ends in failure because you end up fighting human nature. And that is a lost cause.

If you haven't heard it by now, you certainly will before your life is over.... "stop trying to change your spouse". One of mankinds biggest mistakes is thinking if only they tweek a few things, the other person will change. Nope. A person changes because they wanted to.

There are a lot of "habits" and "traits" that seem pretty well cast in stone by the time a person reaches adulthood. Most are pretty well set in stone by the time a child reaches 5 yrs old. After that, we do or become what works, whats easy, what reflects who we are. When we divate from that pattern its because we've changed what we want and the desire to have what we want is strong enough to overcome every obsticle. Is it easy? Not in the least, that's what makes the prize so sweet.

Interestingly enough it was the Democrats who insisted on building these housing projects. They wanted to provide affordable housing for the poor. Instead it created a nest for impoverishment and crime. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I can't think of one single well intended social program that hasn't developed serious negative side effects. Not one.

You know originally the department of education was suppose to shore up poorer schools. It hasn't accomplished a thing except creating administrative jobs. That isn't what Congress wanted, that certainly isn't whats needed.

An old saying.......... why milk the cow when you can get the milk delivered.

Guns, great story. I hope all the kids he knew in high school haven't abandoned him now. He still needs a healthy support system.

[earthtoned]

thanks for sharing the story, guns, when i hear things like that it gives me hope. I also find it interesting that each of us seem to find elements or lessons from it that bolster our own opinions. my own take is that it illustrates that it takes not only personal choice, but the helping hand of others. As i said before, I really dont care where that helping hand comes from, an individual, a volunteer, a charity.... If social programs failed in their charter, i would suggest they were poorly designed programs. you wont get any argument from me on notion that our government and its underlying agencies are bloated, inefficient and corrupt. I want reform. i want a massive reduction in waste. i want the teachers union to either disappear or completely rebuild itself on a charter of high standards and excellence. in exchange, i want the teaching profession, and those who enter public duty working with kids to recieve fair pay and status befitting of their important contribution to society. theres a reason so many teachers stink. the smart one go into a profession where they are compensated fairly.

maybe we do go to a semi-privatized school system, one that operates under strict federal guidelines and standards. I am open to any ideas. honestly, i am less interested in right or left ideology than I am in results.

thanks for this discussion, by the way, this is the type of conversation i come here for.

[Wadi66]

See we are capable of intelligent discussions. It certainly helps when a liberal doesn't come in slinging mud.

ET I think you're a moderate. I'll bet in 5-10 yrs you'll be a conservative. :icon_mrgr Don't let that scare you, I didn't say a Republican.

[earthtoned]

i think i've already pointed out im moderate to conservative on quite a few issues. if the ghost of goldwater were running for office right now, he'd probably get my vote. its primarily the social issues, and environmental policy that keep me firmly on the left anymore.... that and it keeps my father and I on good terms.

[jonfacebass]

People will read the facts and dismiss them in favor of their emotional feelings of 'get the evil rich'. You have to remember - liberalism is based almost entirely in feelings and emotion and very little in facts and logic. That may sound like simply a stereotypically description of liberalism but it is absolutely true.

Provide a source for that statement. Not a source from an opinion article, but a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Find me a phychologist or cognitive scientist who agrees with that statement. Find me a phychology study that shows that liberals think that way.

Nevermind, I'll save you the trouble of looking: you won't find any! No scientist agrees with you. NOT ONE. Sure, cognitive scientists do study the worldviews and unconcious thought process behind different political beliefs, but no cognitive science study has concluded that liberalism is based entirely on emotion. What you just said shows you lack even a basic understanding of phychology and social science.


They ignore articles like this that are based in fact and numbers and instead hang on to the emotional reaction that the rich are somehow evil and the George Bush is simply paying off his rich friends. The truth is that tax cuts help everyone, it just takes a little more brains to understand how.

Just because an article has facts and numbers does not mean it is scientifically acurate. Was that article peer-reviewed? Was it published in a scientific journal? Was it written by an economist? Was it fact-checked by other economists?

The answer to all those questions is NO. That article is from the WSJ opinion column. If you pulled out a peer-reviewed economics paper, then maybe you'd have a little more ground to stand on, but I guess you just don't think like that do you?


The economy may not be working for everyone, it never will. If you start giving away things so the 'poor' do better, you are doing it at the expense of those that actually work to achive it. You can't just throw money at people. The Democrats have been trying that forever and it has never worked. You need to give people incentive to do well. The incentives are out there.

What you are ignoring is that our economy has a built in "cheap labor trap" that is impossible to escape. Millions of poor people cannot pull themselves up by thier bootstraps and get better jobs! Even if all the present lower tier workers pulled themselves up by thier bootstraps, the country would still need another quarter of the population working in slaughterhouses, flipping burgers, waiting tables, cleaning houses, doing day labor, cleaning buildings, pulling weeds, washing cars, and laying bricks? Someone has to do these jobs no matter what, and no "incentive" is going to change that. It is an economic reality in this country.

These low tier workers are working in jobs that uphold the lives of the rich and middle-class. And they are not paid fairly for the work they do. They are not given access to education or health insurance. These workers deserve a moral minimum ammount of income, education, and health care. Anything less is anti-American.

If you work for a living, you should earn a living. That is what liberals believe.