Taxes Destroying Middle Class

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Taxes Destroying Middle Class
52
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 2:09pm
Currently over 50% of everything my husband and I earn is paid in taxes: federal and state income, social security, property, gasoline, and sales taxes. John Kerry cannot keep all the promises he has made without raising taxes. The Democrats are determined to "kill the goose that laid the golden egg" - if Kerry wins, they will succeed! John Edwards complains about two America's, but he advocates for government that will result in two America's: the very rich like the Kerrys/Edwards/Kennedys/Hollywood movie stars who have made their fortunes and use tax loopholes to avoid taxes - and the rest of us who will be forced to depend on government programs because we do not have enough money after taxes to save for our own retirment and health plans.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 1:05pm
Don't forget how Edwards got around paying $800,000

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 1:11pm

<>


So glad you asked.


Nobel laureate calls for steeper tax cuts in US


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush's tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 2:04pm
<>

The same way the larger deficit was taken care of in the 80s. Remember that? You were, no doubt, one of the one's claiming that you're grandchildren would be eating cat food because of that deficit which was retired because of the expanding economy in the 90s. That's the same reason this deficit is projected to be cut in half

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 4:10pm
If you have been following this discussion you must have read the news article posted regarding the Nobel Laureate who agrees with President Bush that tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy and that additional tax cuts are needed. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense: reduce taxes and allow people to keep more of what they earn, they will purchase more goods and services with the extra money, the demand for more goods and services will result in the creation of more jobs, more people working will be paying taxes, and the deficit will be reduced. The alternative is that you tax people more, they have less to spend, there is reduced demand for goods and services, companies lay off workers, laid off workers pay no taxes and require more government services such as unemployment/food stamps/housing assistance/etc., the government must spend more money to provide the services and the deficit grows!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 4:13pm
Why doesn't Bush ever veto anything? This was brought up in the second debate and I don't remember right now if he answered or not. Does anybody remember? If he can't say "no" to everything then how will he pay for stuff? Look at the war debt we're in now. How is that going to be paid off if he keeps his tax cuts? I'm just curious. I'm all for helping people, but I don't get how we're going to pay this debt off. I know I sure don't want my future kids and grandkids paying this off for Bush.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 4:21pm
I believe President Bush responded that he was negotiating with Congress regarding bills Congress was working on before they were voted on so that a consensus could be reached and he would not need to veto bills. This seems logical and respectful to Congress.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 4:29pm
But does he or Congress say no to stuff? I'm just wondering how he pays for everything (especially in a time of war) with all these tax cuts. *shrug*
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2004
Tue, 10-12-2004 - 4:32pm
--

The same way the larger deficit was taken care of in the 80s. Remember that?

--

The debt from the 1980's still isn't paid off yet.

The INTEREST from the Debt still isn't paid off yet.

Knowing that, how was it 'taken care of' exactly?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 6:56am
The only effective way to pay government expenses is to grow the economy - allowing people to keep more of the money they earn allows them to purchase more goods and services, as demand for goods and services increases businesses hire more employees, the new employees buy goods and services and also pay taxes and a sprial of growth and prosperity continues. The Democratic plan causes a downward spiral - people pay more taxes and have less money to spend on goods and services, as demand for goods and services decreases employers lay off employees, as people are laid off they stop paying taxes and begin applying for government services such as food stamps/subsidized housing/medicaid, etc., the government raises taxes to pay for the increased demand for government services and the downward sprial continues. Socialism results when the government finally owns and controls the entire economy - this is the ultimate result of the Democratic plan of increased taxes - the government controls everything people earn and doles out entitlements to food/housing/etc. Socialsim has failed wherever it has been tried - why would we want to follow a failed plan?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 7:59am
I'm aware of this theory. Yes, it is a theory, just like evolution. But it has its problems.

First, remember after 911, and how everyone wanted to donate something, and Elizabeth Dole came on TV and said, "Nothing moves faster than blood and money." She was trying to get people to give money and blood, rather than some sort of "yard sale" things.

Well money moves, alright. It move across borders, and across countries. And nothing the Bush tax plan, now or in the past, does anything to guarentee that the money from the tax cuts stay in America. Corporations have incentives not to invest in America. And many of them don't.

Tax cuts for the middle class do have some effect, because the middle class spends most of its income. But for the upper class? Well, investments should make money, and being a patriot has nothing to do with making money. So if the overseas investments can make more money and can be structured to stay offshore so there is no American taxes to pay, well, so be it.

Second, taxes and wages are both on the same side of the ledger. They are expenses. And the theory that if you lower taxes, and expense, you will automatically raise the amount paid for wages is just a theory and a not very good one. Wages are an expense and businesses have every incentive to cut expenses, no matter what they are. So just cutting taxes to increase wages is sort of a "Santa Claus" vision of the economy. Mr. Generous Employer, having had his taxes cut, will automatically hire more people, because that's the way it works. Well, no, it doesn't.

Third, the money supply, as manipulated by the Great God Greenspan, may his name be blessed, has far more to do with the economy than any tax cut. Look at the last four years. The only real bright spots in the economy have been housing, real estate, and related fields. That's because people buy thing like that based not on how much they cost, but how much they pay a month. But when the cost of money, in interest rates, goes up, the price people will pay for homes and permanent structures go down, because the payment, to stay the same, must cover a higher cost of money, and, hence, a lower purchase price.

Forth, money, as I've already pointed out, seeks to duplicate itself as quickly as possible, as safely as possible. So when money sees government bonds, needed to float the defiacet of the Bush years, compete for money pile with other investments, it floats to the government bonds. When the other investments go up higher, to entice money to come back in the government bond market, interest rates go higher on the government money.

So here's the real outcome of the Bush "cut and spend" period. Money moves out of the U.S. to seek a higher return, interest rates on the money at home go up, prices on big ticket items purchased during the boom times go down, housing prices fall, consumers are left with huge debts that can't be paid, because no new consumer, called, by some "the next greater fool" won't buy, paper capital is destroyed, inflation runs out of control, and we are all broke.

Give a tax break to the lower and middle class, who will actually spend it. Not to the upper class, who will move it out of the country. It's pretty basic stuff, unless you are running for president, and want campaign contributions from corporations, and the rich, who run and own them.