JobLOSS recovery

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

For many years I have held the view that the business paradigm in America has one factor that hurts almost every single one of us working stiffs.

Namely that according to modern American business theory the employee (read you and me) is the lowest common denominator.

Read this article.

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20040209_74864_74864

Hows that saying go? "The rich just keep getting richer and the...."

[Jim0322 Profile]

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Hows that saying go? "The rich just keep getting richer and the...."

Most of Bush's tax cuts heavily favored the rich. His new income tax tables clearly illustrated it. For instance, someone making 40K would not get 1/10 the cash benefit in income tax reductions of someone making 400K, but more like 1/50 the cash benefit.

Jim

[PudriK Profile]

Check out this web site .

Running some simple numbers for single, just income, nothing else...
Income ---------40K ----- 400K

Taxes at previous rates
Amount ------- $5,810 ---- $128,389
Avg. tax rate --- 14.5% ---- 32.1%

At new rates
Amount -------- $5,622 ---- $119,670
Avg. tax rate --- 14.1% --- 30.0%

Savings
Amount ------- $188 ------- $8,719
% of income ---- 0.47% ---- 2.18%

As is obvious from the above, the rich certainly benefitted more from the tax cut, as they received a larger percentage of their income back. (The relative difference of receiving a .5% raise or a 2% raise--except you can't really call getting YOUR money back a raise).

Of course, the reason most of the tax cuts went to the rich is because they pay a lot more of the taxes. So it is a question of what you think is more fair:

1) Should the rich have to give up more than twice as much of their income as the poor?

2) Should the tax cut have given the rich and poor an equal percentage of their income back?

Let's not forget all those non-tax payers who also received a "tax cut."

But WAIT... let's try something more realistic
Joint income, 2 dependants

Income ------- 40K ------ 400K
Prev tax ------ $3,008 ---- $121,633
---------------- 7.5% ---- 30.4%
New tax ------ $1875 ---- $111,882
-------------- 4.7% ------ 28.0%
Savings- ----- $1,133 ------ $9,751
% of income --- 2.8% --- 2.4%

Now for a FAMILY, it is the low income earner who receives a larger tax cut!!

My point? The debate is not simple as rich v. poor.

[smithpa68 Profile]

Don't forget the number of small businesses that are sole proprietorships. They would also reap some of the Bush tax cut. Many think that smal business owners are a huge cog in the American economic engine and a primary provider of jobs. Bush's cuts were also intended to target this segment of business also.

That's what some supporters say anyway. I am not sure what to believe honestly. It does make some sense to me. The idea was to allow these small business owners to invest more in their businesses.

I know that according the people who classify the "rich" and the "poor"... I am classified as rich. If I am.. .then why I am I driving a 98 Honda with 85k miles and live in a townhouse. Becareful who you call rich... it might be yourself.

[PudriK Profile]

smithpa68 - that was what the wholedouble taxation of dividends arguement was about. Let's say you own a corner store. If you are smart, you incorporate so you are not personally liable for any injuries, etc that happen in your store (only the business can be sued, not you.) Your business would be taxed on its income. Then, when the business pays you the owner your income in the form of dividends, you would be taxed on that dividend income. As the business owner, you take a double hit.

Of course, a tax break on dividends would also benefit anyone who owns a large amount of dividend-paying stocks which they are holding as investments, not as business owners.

[smithpa68 Profile]

Ahh. Thanks Pudrik. I certainly don't claim to be an expert in all this. Ingus' article really struck a chord with me. I work for a tech company. That is exactly what I see happening around here. It sickens me. I have been saying for years that we are still PAYING BIG TIME for the dot com bust in the form of companies totally driven by stock price at all costs. Senior executives deserve a large salary. Their decisions impact the company the most. But ths stock option/price obsession is ruining jobs and seem to be pushing companies into the downward spiral described by that article.

[Ralph Wiggum]

A tax cut only benefits people who pay income tax. People who already pay next to nothing in taxes shouldn't cry when someone else gets a bigger refund.

[the_slog]

The problem with using Tax cuts to stimulate the economy is that the person receiving the tax cut needs to spend if in order for the stimulus to work.

People with large incomes tend to save any tax cuts, rather than spend it. For example, If I live a lifestyle that cost $500,000 a year and I make 2 mill a year, I'm not going to spend any tax cut I receieve.

[Murgatroyd]

Of course the wealthy, or "big money earners", are going to benefit more from a tax cut - they pay more taxes. If you try to create parity in tax payments between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, you're going to end up with a society in which there is no point to aspire towards wealth.

Take into consideration the Laffer curve:



Which demonstrates that there is a point at which tax revenues are maximized based upon the income of the taxpayer. In essense, establishes the priniciple that income tax percentage has to be proportional to the income earned, which is why the "rich", or high income class, will always appear to benefit more from a tax cut - their proportionate income tax rate is going to be much higher than that of the "poor".

Tax cuts are supply-side economics, the government claiming otherwise is just smoke and mirrors. Bush's tax "rebate" and the earned income tax credit (look into that if you really think he favors the rich, this is where we're really getting screwed) are attempts to buy votes. Who elects the president? Certainly not the rich. Short of this tumbling into a "selected not elected" argument, take into consideration how our electoral system actually works. Which candidate would fare better in the polls - the one that buffs the rich's diamonds, or the one that puts more bread on the blue collar worker's table?

Yes, we're getting screwed - but it's not the rich who are doing it. Take a look at the earned income tax credit, child tax credits, medicaid spending, medicaid's impact on hospitals and healthcare costs, and you'll have a better idea.

[Fat Bastard]

But it does show that the middle class is getting screwed the most. GIve it time and there will be no middle class which in all cases of history based on economy will lead to a very small wealth group and a huge poor group.

Which leads to REVOLT

Which was seen by Nostradamus as a second civil war in the U.S. being west vs east.

Just my 2 cents

[Vamprey Profile]

After the alleged tax cuts I got excatly $1 extra in my pay check each week. It would take a month just to go to McDonald's with my new windfall...

[the_slog]

Tax cuts are supply-side economics,

No, Tax cuts are Kenysian Economics. Supply side economics is about shifting the supply curve out so suppliers produce more goods when they can get the same price. This is done by elimination of bottlenecks.

Let's use ECGN for example. If the government decides to lower the tax rate ECGN pays on its profits, that gives ECGN's owners more profits to spend.

A supply side change would be elimination of the law that makes it illegal to use unpaid labor for a for profit business. Then ECGN's owners wouldn't have to pay minimum wage to the admins and tech support.

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
Of course the wealthy, or "big money earners", are going to benefit more from a tax cut - they pay more taxes. If you try to create parity in tax payments between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, you're going to end up with a society in which there is no point to aspire towards wealth.

Take into consideration the Laffer curve:



Which demonstrates that there is a point at which tax revenues are maximized based upon the income of the taxpayer. In essense, establishes the priniciple that income tax percentage has to be proportional to the income earned, which is why the "rich", or high income class, will always appear to benefit more from a tax cut - their proportionate income tax rate is going to be much higher than that of the "poor".

Tax cuts are supply-side economics, the government claiming otherwise is just smoke and mirrors. Bush's tax "rebate" and the earned income tax credit (look into that if you really think he favors the rich, this is where we're really getting screwed) are attempts to buy votes. Who elects the president? Certainly not the rich. Short of this tumbling into a "selected not elected" argument, take into consideration how our electoral system actually works. Which candidate would fare better in the polls - the one that buffs the rich's diamonds, or the one that puts more bread on the blue collar worker's table?

Yes, we're getting screwed - but it's not the rich who are doing it. Take a look at the earned income tax credit, child tax credits, medicaid spending, medicaid's impact on hospitals and healthcare costs, and you'll have a better idea.

And you have just run into the real issue.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I'm wondering how many know what that means and who said it (without looking it up).

And that is how to make the so-called middle class disappear. The more people dependent on the Federal government for their very existence, the more power is concentrated in a fewer number; the government. That is what Liberals depend on to gain and maintain power. Our publik edukashun system is relied on to keep the populace dum.


Taxcuts do not create deficits, Federal spending does.

President Bush has attempted to take away the Democrat social spending issues by giving them what they wanted, bloating government spending in more areas than even President Clinton did. He's trying to buy votes.

In effect Murgatroyd is right, but he left out the thousands of other enticements offered by the Federal government, which I'm sure he knows exist.


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

[Rule of Wrist]

Originally posted by Fat Bastard

Which was seen by Nostradamus as a second civil war in the U.S. being west vs east.

He could have been talking about college football... there is civil war there all the time... maybe he just saw the sports section instead of the front page

[Ralph Wiggum]

I think "from each according to his abilities" etc. is from the Communist Manifesto. The middle class isn't getting screwed. If you look at income tax statistics, you will see that the "rich" are paying far more than their share in taxes. I can't vouch for the numbers independently, but here is an article from ABC News on the subject. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Tax2002/taxes_rich_020415.html)
Just because someone who has already paid more gets more back doesn't mean the person who paid the lesser amount is getting screwed, at least not anymore than he was by the initial rate.

On a related note, we ought to define our terms when talking about the "middle class." I believe just about everyone thinks of themselves as middle class except for the ultra-rich. You have to have some income number in mind for it to make sense. Once we establish a number, say 25% above and below either the median or the mean U.S. income, I think many of the people on this server will end up being "rich." Then you can ask yourself whether you want to pay more in taxes.