The tax bill
August 29, 2001 10:21 PM Subscribe
The tax bill was based on conservative ideology: not only did it offer the largest rate breaks to the richest people, but it had the explicit purpose of reducing the activities of the federal government.
What if the rich were paying too much already?
What is the right percentage for someone to have to pay to the various governments?
How much should someone making $20,000 pay?
How about someone making $50,000?
$100,000?
$1,000,000?
What percent is the right amount? What would make you happy?
posted by marknau at 11:04 PM on August 29, 2001
What is the right percentage for someone to have to pay to the various governments?
How much should someone making $20,000 pay?
How about someone making $50,000?
$100,000?
$1,000,000?
What percent is the right amount? What would make you happy?
posted by marknau at 11:04 PM on August 29, 2001
The interesting part (blah, blah, blah, rich people, blah, surplus, blah, social security... let it go) is the bit about reducition in spending this cut enabled.
Dave Pell at NextDraft had a pretty thorough opinion of exactly how and why the tax cut was done, and the effects of reducing spending here. I'll repost it here, because he doesn't have permalinks:
Dave Pell at NextDraft had a pretty thorough opinion of exactly how and why the tax cut was done, and the effects of reducing spending here. I'll repost it here, because he doesn't have permalinks:
SWALLOW THE MONEYposted by mathowie at 11:05 PM on August 29, 2001
Creating a 10 year tax cut in the
face of slowing economic times:
$1.35 trillion
Dipping into a Social Security
surplus that was described as
untouchable during the election:
$9 billion
Creating a fiscal strategy designed
to divert money away from your political
opponents regardless of its effect on
the health of the economy:
Priceless
During the key moments of the Watergate story, an informant known as Deep Throat advised two young reporters from the Washington Post to "Follow the Money." To follow the story line of the current and upcoming budget debates, it may be more helpful to follow the absence of money. Getting rid of the cash that Congress can spend is at the core of the Bush fiscal strategy. Politics is about money and this is the way that W wants to re-appropriate funds to the advantage of the Republicans. One can certainly argue that there is nothing wrong with such goals as getting more votes, gaining more power and debilitating the opposing party is the name of the game in Washington D.C (or Crawford, TX for that matter).
So if you are on the Bush team, how do you achieve the goal? Well, first you need to get rid of the excess money. Excess money can be spent by Congress and much of that spending is directed towards organizations made up of folks who vote for the other team. Don't take my word for this. Last week W himself announced that the dwindling fiscal surplus was "incredibly positive news" that would "create a fiscal straitjacket for Congress."
Some parents use this model. They don't actually spend all of their money, they just tell the kids - during a moment of exhaustion - that the family simply doesn't have the money for that new ping pong table. And what kid, without the aid of a serious sugar boost, can really argue with that logic. Mommy and Daddy are not saying they won't, they are saying they can't.
So, you're back in Crawford and you pick the most windy day to load the budget surplus into the back of an open pick-up truck and you just start driving. That, coupled with a mass mailing of tax cut checks worth a few hundred bucks a piece, and you can get rid of the dough in a hurry. And when you get back to the ranch with an empty pickup, you can exclaim: "This is incredibly positive news."
You argue that those checks will stimulate the economy (conveniently ignoring the fact that for the last several years - during which we had no such cuts - the economy had been more stimulated than teenage boy in a strip club feeding intravenously off a bottomless Red Bull drip). Nobody really believes that a couple hundred bucks a piece is going to stimulate a consumer class when each of us has a couple cars, most of our furniture, the kids' college education, our last few family vacations, a big screen and a new Playstation 2 all spread across about seventy-two credit cards (my wife and I use them as shingles during the rainy season). And in fact, the whole stimulus thing isn't working as consumer confidence fell unexpectedly during the month when the checks arrived in our mailboxes. But remember, it is not really about that. It is about getting rid of the money.
Now you can't simply stop all government support of public programs. So how do you support programs without giving the Democrats a way to dish out cash to their voters at non-profits across the nation (and don't get me wrong, dishing out cash is their specialty)? Well, here's an idea. What if you diverted some of those funds that go to groups that are for the most part run by voters for the other team and redirect the dough to institutions that tend to be more conservative and vote for your team. Enter the Faith-based initiative. Never mind the fact that most faith-based organizations don't want to have to deal with strings that come attached to any government funding. It isn't about where the money is. It's about where the money isn't.
This isn't a one way road. One the opposite side of the highway from that open pickup truck is a Democrat street cleaner that is scooping up all the cash so that they can create more public programs that tend to benefit their constituents. That's politics. As a voter, you just need to decide which political strategy suits your needs and/or the needs of your fellow citizens.
The Bush administration likes to describe themselves in corporate terms and explain that they are running the country like a fiscally responsible corporation. Didn't Webvan say the same thing?
But we must remember an important point. President Bush doesn't control the purse strings, Congress does. He may set the agenda but they set the budget.
As I said in another thread, if we don't like what they (Congress) are doing, it is time to tell them what to do. They are our representatives.
posted by dewelch at 11:08 PM on August 29, 2001
As I said in another thread, if we don't like what they (Congress) are doing, it is time to tell them what to do. They are our representatives.
posted by dewelch at 11:08 PM on August 29, 2001
I know we've all heard it before, but the reason the richest people get the biggest tax break is because they paid the most taxes. The rich are getting screwed, from an equality standpoint, on the refunds. We all get the $300, regardless of what we paid.
Think of this analogy: If I bought an Armani suit, and you bought a shirt at Old Navy, who should get the most money back when we go for a refund?
posted by Kevs at 11:26 PM on August 29, 2001
Think of this analogy: If I bought an Armani suit, and you bought a shirt at Old Navy, who should get the most money back when we go for a refund?
posted by Kevs at 11:26 PM on August 29, 2001
Definately an interesting point by mathowie.
I'm all for any strategy that reduces government spending. Government spending is a sinkhole that usually just buys us poverty, inefficiency, and corruption.
The "running the country like a fiscally responsible corporation" is a sop to all the ignorant "mushy middle" voters who don't realize that one needs a theory of governance before one can determine what the government should do. So we're left with an amalgam of vote-buying strategies, each side trying to bribe 50% + 1.
Yipee.
posted by marknau at 11:30 PM on August 29, 2001
I'm all for any strategy that reduces government spending. Government spending is a sinkhole that usually just buys us poverty, inefficiency, and corruption.
The "running the country like a fiscally responsible corporation" is a sop to all the ignorant "mushy middle" voters who don't realize that one needs a theory of governance before one can determine what the government should do. So we're left with an amalgam of vote-buying strategies, each side trying to bribe 50% + 1.
Yipee.
posted by marknau at 11:30 PM on August 29, 2001
Dear God, I had no idea it was based on conservative ideology! I was ambivalent about it before, but now my eyes have been opened! It is pure evil, I tell you!
posted by kindall at 11:37 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by kindall at 11:37 PM on August 29, 2001
Nice detective work, Sherlock. And here I thought tax cuts represented socialism!
posted by dagny at 12:43 AM on August 30, 2001
posted by dagny at 12:43 AM on August 30, 2001
Smartassness abounds! How clever! How Metafilter!
Let me join in:
As I said in another thread, if we don't like what they (Congress) are doing, it is time to tell them what to do. They are our representatives.
Well put! So we just "tell" our representatives then eh?
The right essentially abandoned the elder Bush and threw Bob Dole overboard in 1996 as insufficiently ideological. George W. Bush seems in fact more conservative than his father; but people who know him believe that his father's failure to be reelected remains much on his mind.
Fairly bombshellish--as is much of everything else in the link. You read first, fellow posters, the link, and then determine what is being said and how well it's been executed. The point really isn't to be pricks to he that hath posteth the link
Regardless of whether the link is just informed, partisan speculation, the fact remains; as who's interests are more important to the republican infested everythings in this country's governmental bodies? The article spells out pretty good who our (if you're progressively political) enemies are and what monied underhanded extents they will go to to thwart the cause of democracy.
Nice job. Petulance and all.
Who's fucking side are you on??
posted by crasspastor at 2:20 AM on August 30, 2001
Let me join in:
As I said in another thread, if we don't like what they (Congress) are doing, it is time to tell them what to do. They are our representatives.
Well put! So we just "tell" our representatives then eh?
The right essentially abandoned the elder Bush and threw Bob Dole overboard in 1996 as insufficiently ideological. George W. Bush seems in fact more conservative than his father; but people who know him believe that his father's failure to be reelected remains much on his mind.
Fairly bombshellish--as is much of everything else in the link. You read first, fellow posters, the link, and then determine what is being said and how well it's been executed. The point really isn't to be pricks to he that hath posteth the link
Regardless of whether the link is just informed, partisan speculation, the fact remains; as who's interests are more important to the republican infested everythings in this country's governmental bodies? The article spells out pretty good who our (if you're progressively political) enemies are and what monied underhanded extents they will go to to thwart the cause of democracy.
Nice job. Petulance and all.
Who's fucking side are you on??
posted by crasspastor at 2:20 AM on August 30, 2001
Fair warning: This is a long 'un...
UncleFes:the tax cut amounted to about $43B; the "surplus" (har dee har) that was lost amounted to about $120B. So it can hardly be said that the tax cut (which tend to spur economic activitiy, not kill it) eliminated the surplus. The surplus was just an accounting fiction, anyway.
Wow, that's horribly misguided/deceptive. First of all, the tax cut is $1.6 trillion over 9 years- it's only the one time pre-rebate that's about $40B. That rebate encompasses only part of the tax cut plan for this year alone, namely the 10% rate- down from 15%- on the first $6,000 of income; tax cuts in the income tax on all other levels will be felt in April 2002, hence the lost surplus. Now, as for the surplus being an "accounting fiction"- funny you should say that, since the pie-in-the-sky $5.6T surplus was the justification for the tax cut and how we could afford it, no? So what, when we need to sell the sucke- er, the voters, on a "richest-1%" tax cut, we talk about the huge surplus, but later when someone points out that the surplus has all but disappeared due to the tax cut, we dismiss said surplus as having never been anything more than an accounting fiction anyway? Wow, and they called Clinton slick...
various:the reason the richest people get the biggest tax break is because they paid the most taxes.
The whole "Rich people shouldn't pay higher taxes" argument has been beaten into the ground so many times, I'm not going to rehash it here. However, while it's one thing to argue for flat taxation- and never forget that income taxes are only one of the taxes paid- would those arguing the rich are getting screwed argue that taxation should be regressive- i.e., that the less you earn the higher the percentage of your income that goes to taxes?
This forced Era of Austerity via the steamrolled tax cut program has the effect of instituting a slide towards regressive taxation. Observe:
- Income taxes are currently "progressive"- the tax rate in percentage of income goes higher with increased earnings
- Social Security is a "regressive" form of taxation- after $80,000, no SS taxes are collected, so the more you make over $80,000 the lower the percentage of your total income is taxed via SS (huh- the rich sure aren't getting screwed THERE)
- The non-SS "surplus" has disappeared due to the tax cut and the decreased revenue projections, and much talk now concerns dipping into the SS surplus "lockbox" to fund general government programs.
Which leads us to this inevitable conclusion: dipping into SS "surpluses" will cause non-SS gov't program to be funded in part by "regressive" as opposed to "progressive" taxes, and will balance lower income taxes with either a) SS shortfalls down the line or b) an eventual raise in the SS tax rate. While we could argue all day that Social Security in itself should be regressive since the very rich won't draw from it- I tend to disagree with that, but hey- and we could argue all day that the income tax should be flat and not progressive- again, I disagree- what cannot be argued is that if the SS funds go to general gov't programs, taxation will become more regressive. And I can't believe anyone would be arguing that general government programs- from schools to roads to the military- should be funded on a regressive tax scheme!!!
As for the "T-bills loaned to the government by itself" rantings, here's an interesting op-ed I read in the Seattle Times today- syndicated columnist I'm not familiar with- trashing the "someone else's promises" nonsense. T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, and have been for years. SS is not a retirement plan, it's a plan where payments are made this year on what's collected this year; shortfalls are made up from previous year's surpluses- which are, yes, funded by other tax revenue to payback those T-Bills- as may be the case in 10 years when those boomers are retiring. However, if we start dipping into those surpluses now to pay for the hole left by tax cuts, Bush will have long been safely retired on his "ranch" in Crawford, laughing at the fools that are the voters who wonder in ~2016 where their SS payments are while millionaires and billionaires have banked beaucoup bucks from eliminating some or all of their estate, income, and capital gains tax responsibilities.
Har dee har, indeed...
posted by hincandenza at 4:26 AM on August 30, 2001
Whoa.
posted by crasspastor at 4:33 AM on August 30, 2001
posted by crasspastor at 4:33 AM on August 30, 2001
Thank you hincandenza....(applause)
Dubya's handlers do seem to have gotten exactly what they wanted and it would be politically a bad move to restore many of the tax cuts at this time. That will have to wait until the general public can be educated (if that is possible) to the realization they have been hoodwinked.
That leaves the unpleasant task of budget cutting. I propose that it begin with the favorite pork programs of the Republican majority that are so enamored with the tax cut. After all their local district pork has been slashed we move on to the Rove/Rumsfeld pork barrel. The faith based missile defense shield is both too expensive and fuzzy science, cut it. Let's close all military bases in those fiscally responsible Republican's districts while we're at it. And my favorite, let's cut those corporate welfare pork projects. For example, we save 300 billiion in corporate welfare by refusing to pass Cheney's energy bill! Hey, this budget cutting is looking better all the time! Thanks Karl and Karen Incorporated!
Whaddy know, we've now got a surplus again! Let's build decent schools this time and give teachers a decent wage, OK? And don't y'all think we should invest in infrastructure, develop alternate energy systems (think Iceland), and do something about urban transit. If we've still got money left over, let's give the poor a tax cut this time by including all payroll taxes instead of just income tax. Isn't that fair?
Spin the tax cut and the results any way you want, the poorest people still suffer the results. And guys isn't it enough that the richest Americans have gotten extremely richer in the past 20 years while the poor have gotten poorer? Gains in personal productivity in the US have translated into no gains for the workers who actually produce, only for the taskmasters! Crack that whip and feed me gruel long enough and I'll come after you in your sleep! :)
All I ask for is fairness, something we're NOT seeing under the dubya "I love the rich" reign.
posted by nofundy at 6:13 AM on August 30, 2001
Dubya's handlers do seem to have gotten exactly what they wanted and it would be politically a bad move to restore many of the tax cuts at this time. That will have to wait until the general public can be educated (if that is possible) to the realization they have been hoodwinked.
That leaves the unpleasant task of budget cutting. I propose that it begin with the favorite pork programs of the Republican majority that are so enamored with the tax cut. After all their local district pork has been slashed we move on to the Rove/Rumsfeld pork barrel. The faith based missile defense shield is both too expensive and fuzzy science, cut it. Let's close all military bases in those fiscally responsible Republican's districts while we're at it. And my favorite, let's cut those corporate welfare pork projects. For example, we save 300 billiion in corporate welfare by refusing to pass Cheney's energy bill! Hey, this budget cutting is looking better all the time! Thanks Karl and Karen Incorporated!
Whaddy know, we've now got a surplus again! Let's build decent schools this time and give teachers a decent wage, OK? And don't y'all think we should invest in infrastructure, develop alternate energy systems (think Iceland), and do something about urban transit. If we've still got money left over, let's give the poor a tax cut this time by including all payroll taxes instead of just income tax. Isn't that fair?
Spin the tax cut and the results any way you want, the poorest people still suffer the results. And guys isn't it enough that the richest Americans have gotten extremely richer in the past 20 years while the poor have gotten poorer? Gains in personal productivity in the US have translated into no gains for the workers who actually produce, only for the taskmasters! Crack that whip and feed me gruel long enough and I'll come after you in your sleep! :)
All I ask for is fairness, something we're NOT seeing under the dubya "I love the rich" reign.
posted by nofundy at 6:13 AM on August 30, 2001
i just got this in an email, i think it's funny:
>While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 90-year-old man, the doctor
>asked his patient how he thought George W. Bush was doing as President.
>The old man said, "Ya know, Bush is a post turtle." Not knowing what the old
>man meant, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle" was.
>
>He said, "Did you ever drive down a country road and come across a fence
>post with a turtle balanced on top? You know he didn't get there by himself,
>he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and
>you just want to help the poor thing down. That's a post turtle."
posted by o2b at 6:53 AM on August 30, 2001
>While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 90-year-old man, the doctor
>asked his patient how he thought George W. Bush was doing as President.
>The old man said, "Ya know, Bush is a post turtle." Not knowing what the old
>man meant, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle" was.
>
>He said, "Did you ever drive down a country road and come across a fence
>post with a turtle balanced on top? You know he didn't get there by himself,
>he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and
>you just want to help the poor thing down. That's a post turtle."
posted by o2b at 6:53 AM on August 30, 2001
Exactly. There was no "surprise" because of changing economic figures; the administration knew all along that they would puff up the size of the surplus prior to the tax cut bill, then show it magically having vanished prior to the budget process. Either way it's sleight of hand. Unfortunately the "liberal" press have swallowed much of the White House line here, hook and sinker included.
Note that this NYRB article was published on August 9, and is datelined by author Elizabeth Drew (who used to write the celebrated Letter from Washington in the pre-Tina Brown New Yorker) on July 10. Most of the press are only just now cottoning to this shell game.
posted by dhartung at 7:31 AM on August 30, 2001
Note that this NYRB article was published on August 9, and is datelined by author Elizabeth Drew (who used to write the celebrated Letter from Washington in the pre-Tina Brown New Yorker) on July 10. Most of the press are only just now cottoning to this shell game.
posted by dhartung at 7:31 AM on August 30, 2001
If you're not tired of reading about it yet, Alternet has a pretty good article on the topic.
posted by muckster at 8:33 AM on August 30, 2001
posted by muckster at 8:33 AM on August 30, 2001
I simply CANNOT believe that my succinct, truthful, non-partisan comments on taxes and Bush did not immediately sway all you commies to my side of the argument. What gives? :)
Hincandenza, I'm especially disappointed about our falling out. We'd worked so long and had accomplished so much... :D
Well, I tried. Hooray for me! (applause).
posted by UncleFes at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2001
Hincandenza, I'm especially disappointed about our falling out. We'd worked so long and had accomplished so much... :D
Well, I tried. Hooray for me! (applause).
posted by UncleFes at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2001
"all you commies"
That's the first group the original Nazis demonized and went after too... History doesn't change things much. Whether you choose to face up to it or not, we live in a socialized world and it's a much better world for it. But then I'm sure you have a special deal with God to take your riches with you when you go old man so screw the least, the last and the lost, eh? WWJD? Advocate for socialist society!
posted by nofundy at 9:29 AM on August 30, 2001
That's the first group the original Nazis demonized and went after too... History doesn't change things much. Whether you choose to face up to it or not, we live in a socialized world and it's a much better world for it. But then I'm sure you have a special deal with God to take your riches with you when you go old man so screw the least, the last and the lost, eh? WWJD? Advocate for socialist society!
posted by nofundy at 9:29 AM on August 30, 2001
Oops. Godwin's Law. Which suits me just fine, since I wouldn't mind nofundy's word here being the last one on the subject.
posted by Fenriss at 9:44 AM on August 30, 2001
posted by Fenriss at 9:44 AM on August 30, 2001
WWJD? Advocate for socialist society!
Me: Nazi. You: Jesus. Got it. If I wasn't such a callous bastard, I'd swear your were trying to hurt my feelings :D
posted by UncleFes at 9:46 AM on August 30, 2001
Me: Nazi. You: Jesus. Got it. If I wasn't such a callous bastard, I'd swear your were trying to hurt my feelings :D
posted by UncleFes at 9:46 AM on August 30, 2001
Hurt your feelings?
No way man!
That wouldn't be Jesus-like!
Hell, I was only trying sway you to my side of the argument by appealing to your obvious humantarian bent Mr. Nazi guy.
Glad you are willing to treat subjects with some humor Fes, you old callous bastard.
I enjoy the rapport.
posted by nofundy at 10:30 AM on August 30, 2001
No way man!
That wouldn't be Jesus-like!
Hell, I was only trying sway you to my side of the argument by appealing to your obvious humantarian bent Mr. Nazi guy.
Glad you are willing to treat subjects with some humor Fes, you old callous bastard.
I enjoy the rapport.
posted by nofundy at 10:30 AM on August 30, 2001
First of all, the tax cut is $1.6 trillion over 9 years- it's only the one time pre-rebate that's about $40B.
They have NO IDEA what the total cost of anything is going to be over 9 years. That's most of the reason the "surplus" is such a sham. Wasn't it just a year and a half ago that the entire government was crowing about what smarties they were for engineering the bazillion dollar surplus? It was book-cookin at its finest. A million things could change between now and 2010 - just like a million things changed between 1999 and 2001. Your $1.6T is just as meaningless as any other number bandied around here.
since the pie-in-the-sky $5.6T surplus was the justification for the tax cut and how we could afford it, no?
Yep. It was crap then, and it's crap now. My feeling is that taxes should be lower in general, regardless of today's S&P numbers. You and I disagree on fundamental taxation theory, not current events.
>would those arguing the rich are getting screwed argue that taxation should be >regressive- i.e., that the less you earn the higher the percentage of your income that goes >to taxes?
No. And the two can be mutually exclusive. All that’s being said is that the rich pay the most taxes; subsequently, a uniform tax cut would provide the rich larger benefits. Percentage-wise, the cuts are the same (I think); but dollar wise, the benefits are larger for the rich – but, taxes are larger for the rich too. The richest 1% of the nation pays 35% of the total tax bill.
Income taxes are currently "progressive"- the tax rate in percentage of income goes SNIP should be funded on a regressive tax scheme!!!
Which is an indicator that the tax policies in general are flawed, and a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. So can we blame Bush for being just as shortsighted as the last couple dozen Congresses in a row? Sure.
T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, and have been for years.
True. But the difference here is that, if you and I buy t-bills, they are government securities- bonds backed by the government. But if the government issues t-bills (which their doing, they’re not buying them off the open market, afaik), they are writing debt on themselves! They basically buying bonds backed by themselves. It’s like printing extra money to cover the bills. Double-dippin', basically. Except they're double-dippin' into our wallets.
the voters who wonder in ~2016 where their SS payments are while millionaires and billionaires have banked beaucoup bucks from eliminating some or all of their estate, income, and capital gains tax responsibilities.
Why do you automatically assume that rich people have an obligation to fund your retirement?
>Har dee har, indeed...
It gets funnier every day, man :)
Glad you are willing to treat subjects with some humor Fes, you old callous bastard.
Bah, I could rail at you darn kids - always with the funny clothes, the "rock and roll" (screaming, I call it!) the always flaunting authority, but what good what it do? :D
posted by UncleFes at 11:07 AM on August 30, 2001
They have NO IDEA what the total cost of anything is going to be over 9 years. That's most of the reason the "surplus" is such a sham. Wasn't it just a year and a half ago that the entire government was crowing about what smarties they were for engineering the bazillion dollar surplus? It was book-cookin at its finest. A million things could change between now and 2010 - just like a million things changed between 1999 and 2001. Your $1.6T is just as meaningless as any other number bandied around here.
since the pie-in-the-sky $5.6T surplus was the justification for the tax cut and how we could afford it, no?
Yep. It was crap then, and it's crap now. My feeling is that taxes should be lower in general, regardless of today's S&P numbers. You and I disagree on fundamental taxation theory, not current events.
>would those arguing the rich are getting screwed argue that taxation should be >regressive- i.e., that the less you earn the higher the percentage of your income that goes >to taxes?
No. And the two can be mutually exclusive. All that’s being said is that the rich pay the most taxes; subsequently, a uniform tax cut would provide the rich larger benefits. Percentage-wise, the cuts are the same (I think); but dollar wise, the benefits are larger for the rich – but, taxes are larger for the rich too. The richest 1% of the nation pays 35% of the total tax bill.
Income taxes are currently "progressive"- the tax rate in percentage of income goes SNIP should be funded on a regressive tax scheme!!!
Which is an indicator that the tax policies in general are flawed, and a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. So can we blame Bush for being just as shortsighted as the last couple dozen Congresses in a row? Sure.
T-Bills are the safest investment in the world, and have been for years.
True. But the difference here is that, if you and I buy t-bills, they are government securities- bonds backed by the government. But if the government issues t-bills (which their doing, they’re not buying them off the open market, afaik), they are writing debt on themselves! They basically buying bonds backed by themselves. It’s like printing extra money to cover the bills. Double-dippin', basically. Except they're double-dippin' into our wallets.
the voters who wonder in ~2016 where their SS payments are while millionaires and billionaires have banked beaucoup bucks from eliminating some or all of their estate, income, and capital gains tax responsibilities.
Why do you automatically assume that rich people have an obligation to fund your retirement?
>Har dee har, indeed...
It gets funnier every day, man :)
Glad you are willing to treat subjects with some humor Fes, you old callous bastard.
Bah, I could rail at you darn kids - always with the funny clothes, the "rock and roll" (screaming, I call it!) the always flaunting authority, but what good what it do? :D
posted by UncleFes at 11:07 AM on August 30, 2001
« Older "The gremlin in Falling Hare (who, let us... | "Now, I know those tax returns were around here... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Three points on the tax cut:
(a) the tax cut amounted to about $43B; the "surplus" (har dee har) that was lost amounted to about $120B. So it can hardly be said that the tax cut (which tend to spur economic activitiy, not kill it) eliminated the surplus. The surplus was just an accounting fiction, anyway.
(b) As for Bush dipping into the "social security lockbox" to replace the surplus, that's another accounting fiction. The money you pay in goes out to current beneficiaries; what's left over is grabbed by congress and spent; in return, they throw T-bills into an account called "social security." Which would be fine if it was you or me buying t-bills and putting them in an account, but the government *issues* t-bills. They're writing themselves IOUs, and that money is going to have to come from somewhere when the bills come due. Since government doesn't do any business, manufacture any product or sell any service, it doesn't generate any revenue. The backing on those bonds is your future tax money.
(c) $300 bucks is nothing. Why's everyone got their panties in a wedge? $300 is like 2% of my total annual federal tax bill. Whoopity doo.
posted by UncleFes at 10:53 PM on August 29, 2001