• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doesn't a middle class tax cut also benefit the the Rich?

Doesn't a middle class tax cut also benefit the rich?

  • Total voters
    16
TurtleDude said:
people get tired of being milked and get nothing back in return. those targeted for tax hikes by obama will get no additional benefits for that soaking. you miss the point that the politically expedient act of soaking the rich only causes more and more spending as those who want the spending have no reason to reign it in since they aren't paying for it
Click to expand...

Let's see what benefits the wealthy receive, will receive, or have received:
1) Keeping their banks, insurance companies, and auto plants afloat during a recession (and not just the ones that were actually bailed out).
2) An educated workforce that produces talented employees.
3) A health care system that produces healthy employees with low absenteeism rates.
4) A justice system that protects their property rights.
5) A military and law enforcement system that protects their property and personal rights.
6) An infrastructure system that can deliver goods from their suppliers to their business, without prohibitively expensive shipping costs. That can power their factories via an electric grid and provide them with data via the internet, without prohibitively expensive utility costs.
7) A consumer class with disposable income, which can purchase the goods and services that their businesses provide.

Those are a few that I can think of off-hand. Furthermore, a lot of recent spending on the lower- and middle-class is to combat the recession, for which the wealthy are disproportionately responsible. So even in those cases, it's not so much an increase in benefits to "the parasite classes" at the expense of the wealthy...it's making the kid who broke the window pay to have it fixed.

TurtleDude said:
if people are expected to carry most of the load in paying for government services they damn well ought to get additional goverment benefits which certainly is not the case now
Click to expand...

No. Although the wealthy do benefit from government as stated above, the whole point of taxes is to provide things that the market cannot or will not. It doesn't make sense to establish a one-to-one ratio of more taxes from me personally = more benefits to me personally. Taxes provide for the public. Services in which the "I pay more, I get more" model works should be (and typically are) privatized. Government specifically handles areas where that model DOESN'T work.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Let's see what benefits the wealthy receive or have received:
1) Keeping their banks, insurance companies, and auto plants afloat during a recession (and not just the ones that were actually bailed out).
2) An educated workforce that produces talented employees.
3) A health care system that produces healthy employees with low absenteeism rates.
4) A justice system that protects their property rights.
5) A military and law enforcement system that protects their property and personal rights.
6) An infrastructure system that can deliver goods from their suppliers to their business, without prohibitively expensive shipping costs. That can power their factories via an electric grid and provide them with data via the internet, without prohibitively expensive utility costs.

Those are a few that I can think of off-hand.
Click to expand...

not a direct benefit-speculative at best

the rich don't use the police near as much as the poor

the poor are far more likley to be the victims of criminal attack than the rich

we had all those benefits before there was an income tax

try again

and others noted what the rich get they pay for

the rich get no additional direct benefits by virtue of paying way way too much of the tax bill

a flat tax would still mean the rich pay more than they use

but it would prevent the dems from buying votes by telling the many that only the minority will face higher taxes to pay for the government programs that appeal to the many

later dude, early morning tomorrow take care
 
ender1 said:
Taxes 101

Our tax system uses a progressive tax model. Income is evaluated in brackets. As your income increases you enter higher tax brackets and higher % of your income in that bracket. To be clear, everyone pays the same % on the first $8,375. Its 10% so everyone pays up to the max of $837.50 if you make over $8375.00. Rich and poor. If your income is greater than $8,375 you move into the next bracket and pay 15% on everything you earn within that tax bracket.

So if your taxable income is $100,000 you would pay the following
( $ 8,375 minus 0 ) x .10 : $837.50
( 34,000 minus 8,375 ) x .15 : $3,843
( 82,400 minus 34,000 ) x .25 : $12,100
( 100,000 minus 82,400 ) x .28 : $4,928
Total: $ 21708.5


Based upon your question then yes. If the bottom brackets stay the same or go down then both rich and poor benefit. BUT, to the poor and middle class the actual % increase in disposible income is a significantly higher than what the rich would get. In fact that few thousand dollars is nothing to someone who makes $250k or more.

I am not saying I like the tax system we have or what it is spent on. This is just the facts.
Click to expand...

Let's just all pay 20% forget all this crap.
Taxes collected should be enough to take care of those truly unable to work or find a job in a bad economy.
 
Barbbtx said:
Let's just all pay 20% forget all this crap.
Taxes collected should be enough to take care of those truly unable to work or find a job in a bad economy.
Click to expand...

Because that is even worse. Its a regressive tax. Not quite as bad as a consumption tax but still bad.

I do like that your trying to come up with solutions instead of just complaining about the one we have. I do think there is a solution but its not to give all the money to the rich. Its also not steal from the rich and give it to those who dont want to work. Money is still the best motivation for success we have come up with.
 
TurtleDude said:
In some ways it hurts the rich. The middle class supply most of the votes in this country and use most of the government resources.
Click to expand...
That's a load of crap. Actually the very wealthy use up more of the government services.


Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?
In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

Why the rich should pay more taxes



Giving them a tax break leads to the middle class believing they can continue to support reckless spending politicians because their taxes won't be raised.
Click to expand...
You got a tax break. Is that why you supported Bush's reckless spending?
 
This question is certainly long overdue. In so many ways the wealthiest in society completely benefit in multiple ways that can be made comparable to a parasitic effect. First and foremost the wealthy benefit from public spending more then anyone else. Health, education and welfare all indirectly subsidise the upper classes wallet size.

Having a huge relatively healthy body of employable and well educated is their main asset. In most cases these people pay for these factors out of their own pockets via taxes and or bank loans.(done with interest) On this alone the wealthy get more then they put into society .. easily.

The Bush taxes originally in place are about to come back. The question we should ask is why Bush set a time that they would return? Obviously they didn't believe them to be sustainable. But lets consider the group that benefited most in terms of money saved/earned.

The whole idea is that a tax cut for the highest income bracket would increase the tax base substantially.. but it didn't. In fact it had little to no effect. The tax cuts for middle and lower income classes had a far greater positive effect then a few thousand dollars more in some ones pocket that really wasn't asking for the tax cut and didn't need it. But further lower income brackets directly reinvest that tax savings into the economy more often then not because they have to for multiple reasons. Debt repayment and consumption of services or goods. Which again directly goes into upper income classes pockets. While the wealthiest who needed the money saved even far less don’t have to spend it at all.

Additionally, the economy at best only had a one time small burst from the cut.. then as the excess money from the tax savings is realised the economy normalised. It just equated to less money being in circulation as a whole. The wealthy have absorbed the money the middle incomes saved from the tax cut.. via consumption of services or goods at added expense, debt repayment (at interest) all the while raising the public debt which has interest to be financed with public funds derived from taxation. Would a tax increase on the middle class hurt the economy.. well an even more progressive cap on taxing the middle class incomes over 200k would not hurt so much as lower incomes.. and another cap around 150k a smaller percentage. The vast majority of lower incomes benifit more from lower taxation. The taxes on the most wealthy have smaller and smaller effect overall

It's no wonder why we can see such a disparity in the growth of wealth in the middle class and lower incomes compared to the wealthiest. I say it is about time that the upper crust of society, that has an ultra privileged existence, has to pay back. You could call it a form of social morality if you like. Simple logic is one good turn deserves another. Why doesn't society expect these people to pay back? Clearly they see them deserving of such privilege. I don't personally revere the wealthy as though they all merit insanely privileged lives over and above the rest of us maggots that are obviously deserving of our state of being. Ironically they live their lives directly benefiting from the existence of lower income classes that are fraught with struggle and living from pay check to pay check.
 
ender1 said:
Because that is even worse. Its a regressive tax. Not quite as bad as a consumption tax but still bad.

I do like that your trying to come up with solutions instead of just complaining about the one we have. I do think there is a solution but its not to give all the money to the rich. Its also not steal from the rich and give it to those who dont want to work. Money is still the best motivation for success we have come up with.
Click to expand...

how do you give money to people by taking less of what they already had?
 
mertex said:
That's a load of crap. Actually the very wealthy use up more of the government services.


Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?
In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

Why the rich should pay more taxes




You got a tax break. Is that why you supported Bush's reckless spending?
Click to expand...

speaking of a steaming load of bs

I was against Bush's spending

I want to get rid of about half of the federal government

the wealthiest people are far more mobile than the middle class so your crap that the Rich benefit the most is complete nonsense.

The people who benefit from corporate welfare are the uber-rich not those who make up the majority of those targeted for Dem tax hikes.
 
Gabriel said:
This question is certainly long overdue. In so many ways the wealthiest in society completely benefit in multiple ways that can be made comparable to a parasitic effect. First and foremost the wealthy benefit from public spending more then anyone else. Health, education and welfare all indirectly subsidise the upper classes wallet size.

Having a huge relatively healthy body of employable and well educated is their main asset. In most cases these people pay for these factors out of their own pockets via taxes and or bank loans.(done with interest) On this alone the wealthy get more then they put into society .. easily.

The Bush taxes originally in place are about to come back. The question we should ask is why Bush set a time that they would return? Obviously they didn't believe them to be sustainable. But lets consider the group that benefited most in terms of money saved/earned.

The whole idea is that a tax cut for the highest income bracket would increase the tax base substantially.. but it didn't. In fact it had little to no effect. The tax cuts for middle and lower income classes had a far greater positive effect then a few thousand dollars more in some ones pocket that really wasn't asking for the tax cut and didn't need it. But further lower income brackets directly reinvest that tax savings into the economy more often then not because they have to for multiple reasons. Debt repayment and consumption of services or goods. Which again directly goes into upper income classes pockets. While the wealthiest who needed the money saved even far less don’t have to spend it at all.

Additionally, the economy at best only had a one time small burst from the cut.. then as the excess money from the tax savings is realised the economy normalised. It just equated to less money being in circulation as a whole. The wealthy have absorbed the money the middle incomes saved from the tax cut.. via consumption of services or goods at added expense, debt repayment (at interest) all the while raising the public debt which has interest to be financed with public funds derived from taxation. Would a tax increase on the middle class hurt the economy.. well an even more progressive cap on taxing the middle class incomes over 200k would not hurt so much as lower incomes.. and another cap around 150k a smaller percentage. The vast majority of lower incomes benifit more from lower taxation. The taxes on the most wealthy have smaller and smaller effect overall

It's no wonder why we can see such a disparity in the growth of wealth in the middle class and lower incomes compared to the wealthiest. I say it is about time that the upper crust of society, that has an ultra privileged existence, has to pay back. You could call it a form of social morality if you like. Simple logic is one good turn deserves another. Why doesn't society expect these people to pay back? Clearly they see them deserving of such privilege. I don't personally revere the wealthy as though they all merit insanely privileged lives over and above the rest of us maggots that are obviously deserving of our state of being. Ironically they live their lives directly benefiting from the existence of lower income classes that are fraught with struggle and living from pay check to pay check.
Click to expand...

the dishonesty of posts such as your whine about the uber wealthy is that the schemes you back hit everyone in the top 2% and most of those aren't the ones "guilty" of the stuff that causes major bedwetting among the socialists and egalitarians. and btw-the top 1% pays 40% of the income tax so your drivel that they don't give back is just a bright and shining LIE
 
Last edited:
ender1 said:
Sorry, I dont understand. Please be more spacific.
Click to expand...

I thought a libertarian would understand that a tax cut is not giving taxpayers anything. its stealing less from them
 
TurtleDude said:
I thought a libertarian would understand that a tax cut is not giving taxpayers anything. its stealing less from them
Click to expand...

I did not make the connection you were making. You are confusing two issues.

1) Giving citizens something and

2) Paying the bills.

The destinction may be lost on you because you cant think of anyone but yourself.
 
ender1 said:
I did not make the connection you were making. You are confusing two issues.

1) Giving citizens something and

2) Paying the bills.

The destinction may be lost on you because you cant think of anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...

I can think rather well thank you and I certainly understand this issue far more than someone who doesn't even understand the philosophical groundings of the group they claim to be a member of

Tax cuts do not give anyone anything. They mean the government takes less of property already owned by the citizens.
 
apdst said:
So, rich folks started two wars? Howdayafigger?
Click to expand...

we run the world

Hell I even own a couple black helicopters that are piloted by free masons. We use them to attend skull and bones meetings in a secret location near Yale university and then hop over to the Trilateral Commission meetings in NYC.
 
TurtleDude said:
I can think rather well thank you and I certainly understand this issue far more than someone who doesn't even understand the philosophical groundings of the group they claim to be a member of

Tax cuts do not give anyone anything. They mean the government takes less of property already owned by the citizens.
Click to expand...

You have questioned my understanding of what a libertarian is in almost every post. I am libertarian and understand quite well what that means. I have stated several times that it is my desire to have a smaller government but we have trillions to pay back. All you ever say is dont take mine. Mine Mine Mine. I asked you how we should pay that back and you came up with a consumption tax. Awful idea. That would kill our economy and is a regressive tax. Stop complaining and offer a REAL solution.
 
ender1 said:
You have questioned my understanding of what a libertarian is in almost every post. I am libertarian and understand quite well what that means. I have stated several times that it is my desire to have a smaller government but we have trillions to pay back. All you ever say is dont take mine. Mine Mine Mine. I asked you how we should pay that back and you came up with a consumption tax. Awful idea. That would kill our economy and is a regressive tax. Stop complaining and offer a REAL solution.
Click to expand...

Here is why I want a consumption tax

1) those who have illegal incomes don't pay much federa tax. It would capture billions of dollars made off of the drug trade

2) it would get rid of much of the IRS. I just got done signing a bunch of tax forms earlier tonight after an extension. Americans pay billions of dollars in terms of time and money to figure out their taxes. Having run a small business its not much more work to collect federal taxes on top of state taxes

3) it would prevent the already too powerful congress from having the power to buy votes by telling one group that they can get what they want while others pay for it.

4) the IRS is a huge source of power for the government-get rid of income taxes and you get rid of lots of power. Indeed, during debates on the income tax about a century or so ago, an Indiana Senator proposed a sales tax and an income tax proponent noted a sales tax didn't give the government near as much power

I know jacking up taxes on a small percentage of the tax payers means the government will keep spending because most of the voters won't see any reason to stop spending

seems to me if you really want less government you have to support a system that will encourage the majority of people to want less government and the only way to do that with the nanny state addicts is to make them suffer financially for more government
 
TurtleDude said:
people get tired of being milked and get nothing back in return. those targeted for tax hikes by obama will get no additional benefits for that soaking. you miss the point that the politically expedient act of soaking the rich only causes more and more spending as those who want the spending have no reason to reign it in since they aren't paying for it

if people are expected to carry most of the load in paying for government services they damn well ought to get additional goverment benefits which certainly is not the case now
Click to expand...

Let's deal in facts. Obama is not targeting tax hikes. The temporary tax relief of 2001 is expiring. There are no tax hikes. We are only discussing whether tax relief should be continued, and if so, to what extent. The additional benefit of not turning temporary tax relief into something permanent is revenue enhancement (last time I checked, the government needs to work toward a balanced budget). The big question is what benefit, if any, does the government get from making these cuts permanent, particularly on taxable income levels in excess of $250K, a level at which the benefit is most hypothetical, at best.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Let's deal in facts. Obama is not targeting tax hikes. The temporary tax relief of 2001 is expiring. There are no tax hikes. We are only discussing whether tax relief should be continued, and if so, to what extent. The additional benefit of not turning temporary tax relief into something permanent is revenue enhancement (last time I checked, the government needs to work toward a balanced budget). The big question is what benefit, if any, does the government get from making these cuts permanent, particularly on taxable income levels in excess of $250K, a level at which the benefit is most hypothetical, at best.
Click to expand...

there have been other tax hikes. I tend to look at things from the long term and the long term harm of making a small minority pay more and more taxes has several problems that I have laid out many times before

the dems have no desire to cut spending because spending money on their voters is what gets them votes
 
TurtleDude said:
there have been other tax hikes. I tend to look at things from the long term and the long term harm of making a small minority pay more and more taxes has several problems that I have laid out many times before

the dems have no desire to cut spending because spending money on their voters is what gets them votes
Click to expand...

The solution is a mix of spending cuts, tax increases and an improved economy. It is a blend, there is no single answer.

I am coming around to the notion that tax cuts should be extending on those making over $250K, with the marginal rate on incomes in excess of $1MM increased to 50%. The bifurcation of economic classes only serves to weaken this country long-term. There is no reason for the expontentially increasing ratio of CEO/Mail room pay that we have experienced in this country. The very high marginal tax rates pre-Reagan did serve to dis-incentivize very high executive pay in favor of re-investment and better pay for rank and file workers.
 
upsideguy said:
The solution is a mix of spending cuts, tax increases and an improved economy. It is a blend, there is no single answer.

I am coming around to the notion that tax cuts should be extending on those making over $250K, with the marginal rate on incomes in excess of $1MM increased to 50%. The bifurcation of economic classes only serves to weaken this country long-term. There is no reason for the expontentially increasing ratio of CEO/Mail room pay that we have experienced in this country. The very high marginal tax rates pre-Reagan did serve to dis-incentivize very high executive pay in favor of re-investment and better pay for rank and file workers.
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that everyonee should be entitled to keep the same amount of the next dollar they earn so politicians cannot pander to the many to jack up the tax rate of a few. its obscene to say that someone should keep less than half of the next dollar he earns.

I agree some CEO salaries appear to be Ego Driven by boards of directors but I hate the social engineering that rapes some who don't fit your mold-such as a business owner who really earns his millions or a top talent like say Jimmy Page or Bono.

what weakens this country in the long run is that too few people are forced to pay for huge government and thus too few people really have no interest in getting rid of it

and getting rid of as much government as possible is the best solution for America
 
Kandahar said:
That's just your speculation though. I could just as easily make a plausible argument for exactly the opposite conclusion:
Scenario 1 - The middle-class is more strapped for cash due to higher taxes, and therefore is more likely to support government programs to ease their economic burdens.
Scenario 2 - The middle-class keeps more of their own money due to lower taxes, and therefore is less likely to care about government programs to ease their economic burdens.
Click to expand...

In what universe is it a plausible argument to suggest that a person who is strapped for cash would support the person who took their cash from them? If you were mugged and had the opportunity to do one of the following: 1-demand a sandwich from the mugger or 2- kick the everlovin' sh*t out of the mugger and take your money back...:doh

Do you know a single person in the world who would choose #1? I'll admit, there probably are a few, but they would be a statistically insignificant few.
 
ender1 said:
You have questioned my understanding of what a libertarian is in almost every post. I am libertarian and understand quite well what that means. I have stated several times that it is my desire to have a smaller government but we have trillions to pay back. All you ever say is dont take mine. Mine Mine Mine. I asked you how we should pay that back and you came up with a consumption tax. Awful idea. That would kill our economy and is a regressive tax. Stop complaining and offer a REAL solution.
Click to expand...

A consumption tax doesn't have to be regressive (i.e. don't tax groceries and cheap clothing) and it would only kill the economy if the rate is too high.
 
apdst said:
So, rich folks started two wars? Howdayafigger?
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying the rich started two wars. I was being facetious, TD blamed the middle-class for the spending, my point was that much of the spending was due to the wars and had nothing to do with the middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom