|
You wanted to say...:
Nicole - 2003-05-30 23:34:06
OK goddamnit..the layout is almost done..it's cool as shit. Have a good weekend with the hubby need to talk to you next week so I can tweak it some..it's taken me a bit longer because I've added some kick ass features for you...ICQ me with your AIM SN please or some way to get you damnit!!!!! Gotta work major OT this weekend and first part of next week so it might be hit and miss..
-------------------------------
helderheid - 2003-05-31 00:06:11
Will miss you but maybe I'll take my hubby hostage - sure could use a weekend like that!
-------------------------------
kev - 2003-05-31 01:44:28
Of course, if you earn under $26,000 a year and have kids, you already don't PAY much in the way of taxes. Yes, the tax cut is meant, in part, to be a relief package for the middle and upper class which has been shouldering the load for everyone else for quite a while. Those who haven't contributed much over the years, and yet have been reaping the majority of the benefits of various entitlement and social programs will necessarily not receive much of a cut.
The tax cut is also part of a stimulus package through which it is hoped business will eventually move toward expansion again--thereby creating JOBS (and more tax revenue despite the lower tax rates). What would you have done--tax *increases* for the middle class so that even less money can be pumped into the economy? The most important thing right now is to get the economy rolling forward again so that those with lower-income job prospects will have lasting job opportunities... and perhaps even the opportunity to better themselves and to move into the middle class.
Now, if you want to argue that a tax cut isn't necessarily the *correct* economic stimulus for this situation, or that this expansionary fiscal policy (i.e., increasing spending while decreasing tax rates) will only cause further problems in the long run due to higher deficits, I could be on the same page.
Otherwise it's just the tired old liberal idea that there ought to be an entire CLASS of people who pay NO taxes and yet reap almost all the benefits of social welfare programs. Now we're talking Robin Hood redistribution of wealth through government coercion and the government as the benevolent despot.
Before you ask, I'm 28 and have never grossed more than $12,000 in one fiscal year.
Be well.
-------------------------------
Windy - 2003-05-31 02:15:10
If you make under $26k-something, and you have kids, (and sometimes even if you don't), you generally qualify for the Earned Income Credit (trust me, I know). Which basically means not only do you not pay taxes because you get them refunded to you, you get EXTRA money on top of that. I had this whole long spiel to go with this, but realized it was too long to go in a g-book entry, so I put it in my diary. Please, feel free to swing by and read it.
-------------------------------
pirates - 2003-05-31 07:20:34
I think you've confused the liberal idea with the "tired old" conservative scare-tactic claim about liberals. The liberal idea, rather, is simply that nobody should live in dirt, whether or not they happen to be employed at the moment, because that's simple human decency. Few if any liberals want an entire class of people to stagnate on welfare, they just prefer that those currently in this situation not have to worry about being on the brink of homelessness or starvation all the time. It's ultimately the same goal: attempting to help members of the lowest classes find gainful employment, if possible (as we all know, it's literally impossible to have full employment at any time in a capitalist economy); it's just that liberals generally prefer methods that aren't horrifically cruel and inhumane to folks in the meantime. I won't say that every liberal is an angel by a long shot, but it's quite plain to me that every single economically conservative individual (who votes, I guess I shoudl add) is exacting (intentionally or not) intense cruelty upon millions of people. There's not really room for argument there. If you prefer a system in which you can expect and are fine with so many people slipping through the cracks, then you are supporting a cold, brutal system.
-------------------------------
gutterpoet - 2003-05-31 09:42:37
Ravyne oh no! You said the "T" word. You know what that does to a Libertarian! I hate being in a position of defending a tax cut from the Republicans which is a joke compared to what should be done but *ahem* here goes. A tax rebate implies one paid taxes in the first place. Those under a certain income do not get rebates because they don't pay in the first place. Now supposedly I am "rich" because I make more than that amount but since I am fully taxed (having no children) I bet I net less than those below the line. To tell me that I not only need pay what I do but more when I make only a few thousand more than 26k is enough to make me wish to bear arms (while I still can). The wealthiest in this country pay nearly all the taxes and one day as we continue to raise the upper rates and have less lower end paying the well will run dry. A flat tax or a national sales tax are the only fair taxes we can have. Our forefathers revolted over much less in the way of taxation than we currently have. Please visit fairtax.org and see what you think.
Have a good weekend Ravyne.
-------------------------------
jessica lovejoy - 2003-05-31 18:26:33
Gah, nothing in the world bores me faster than tax-talk. Instead, can't we discuss the fact that dubya's testicle- were clearly visible through that pilot's jumpsuit he wore? Come on, now THATS some interesting shit! (enjoy yr weekend: you deserve it) -JL
-------------------------------
shesajar - 2003-05-31 20:34:12
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C., has just published a report, written by the estimable Robert McIntyre (a liberal tax analyst whose numbers are among the most credible in the field) and six co-authors, that provides detailed statistics about tax burdens and tax trends in each state. It also ranks states according to their relative tax progressivity (Washington, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and South Dakota have the most regressive state tax systems; Delaware, Montana, Vermont, and California have the most progressive) and draws some broad conclusions about tax distribution nationwide. The report's central finding is that most state tax systems are regressive: on average, middle-income families pay more than twice as much of their income in state and local taxes as rich families do�and poor families pay a relatively greater share than even middle-income families. And these taxes have become more regressive over the past decade and a half. While taxes on the rich have fallen as a percentage of income since 1989, taxes on the middle class and the poor have risen. (A crucial determinant of how heavily a state's tax burden falls on its poorest citizens is how much the state relies on sales or excise taxes to generate revenue; poor families pay more than six times as much of their income in consumption taxes as rich families do.) As states mull over how to make up huge fiscal shortfalls in 2003 and 2004, this report is essential reading and can be found at:
http://www.ctj.org/itep/whopays.htm
-------------------------------
Ris - 2003-06-01 13:20:19
I hope the hubby is spoiling you this weekend! Just wanted to share the URL above, 'cos you know, death camps are scary and stuff.
-------------------------------
Carissa - 2003-06-02 00:43:31
Thanks for putting the truthout link up! I found that last week but haven't had a chance to post it yet. The articles on there rock.
-------------------------------
boyfromks - 2003-06-02 04:09:11
The Wall Street Journal has recently lamented the "undertaxed" poor. The view that the wealthy bear an "unfair burden" is offbase. Two reasons. One, it looks only at income taxes, but ignores the many other forms of taxes that they do pay (sales tax, property taxes in the form of higher rents, tariffs). Many of these taxes result in the double or tripple (or more) taxation on income (one of Bush's justifications for not taxing dividend income). And, of course the rich pay most of the taxes in gross terms, they have most of the money. But, if you take into consideration all the taxes paid, as a percentage of income that goes to taxes, it's relatively evenly spread out. Second, it's not like all government spending is simply transfer payments to the poor. Many people don't recognize the ways in which they benefit from the government. Courts to enforce contracts, police to ensure property rights, subsidized education and scientific research (eg. the internet), etc. These things are taken for granted, and it's hard to put a dollar value on them. BUt ask the people of Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, or Iraq what a stable, functioning state is worth. Not that all of this would disappear with the Bush tax cut, but people need to get over the government automatically equals bad view.
-------------------------------
so tell me...:
Ahhhh...thanks, I needed that!
back to the entry - Diaryland
|