29 Jul 09
Originally posted by generalissimoNo, I don't think so.
I think it is a bit hypocritical of her to label herself "pro-life" and still support the war in iraq, don't you think?
First "pro-life" is a term of art, that specifically refers to being anti-abortion. Everyone understands that. Those who are "pro-choice" don't necessarily believe I should get to choose whether to buckle my seat belt before driving my car.
Second, most of those who supported the Iraq war did so on the grounds that toppling Saddam Hussein would save lives in the long run, whether because they believed he was developing weapons of mass destruction or because they believed he was a brutal despot that, for the sake of those in his country, region and World, needed to be deposed. Whether they were right or wrong is an entirely different matter. But they did not support the war in Iraq because they believed in death rather than life.
Frankly, and I sincerely hope you don't mind my saying to, but I think that is a bit of a childish oversimplification.
29 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76I know what you mean, I was just saying that I think the term is not accurate, if you don't support abortion then you're anti-abortion.
No, I don't think so.
First "pro-life" is a term of art, that specifically refers to being anti-abortion. Everyone understands that. Those who are "pro-choice" don't necessarily believe I should get to choose whether to buckle my seat belt before driving my car.
Second, most of those who supported the Iraq war did so on the grounds that toppling Saddam Hu ...[text shortened]... you don't mind my saying to, but I think that is a bit of a childish oversimplification.
"pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both inaccurate terms, why can't they just call themselves "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion"?
and yes, I know all that, I was just playing devil's advocate.
29 Jul 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI agree with that.
I know what you mean, I was just saying that I think the term is not accurate, if you don't support abortion then you're anti-abortion.
"pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both inaccurate terms, why can't they just call themselves "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion"?
and yes, I know all that, I was just playing devil's advocate.
Both sides of so many debates coin terms to make their position sound better.
Pro-choice people are really just pro-abortion
Pro-life people are really just anti-abortion
Republicans call the "estate tax" the "death tax" to make it sound like it's death that's being taxed when really it's wealth transfer that's being taxed
Democrats called the Bush tax cut a "tax cut for the rich" when in fact, it cut taxes across the board
etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunate, but that's politics...
29 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76a true "across the board" tax cut would be a tax cut where everybody gets the same amount of money...ie 300 bux/person.
I Democrats called the Bush tax cut a "tax cut for the rich" when in fact, it cut taxes across the board
...
Most tax cuts are done as percentages of your income.
A 1% income tax cut means:
40K income equals 400 bux tax cut
400K income equals 4000 bux tax cut.
A difference of $3600 for the rich boy. This is why tax cuts mostly favour rich people. You know that.
29 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessNo, a true "across the board" tax cut is one that cuts everyone's taxes by the same percentage. Obviously, you cannot cut someone's taxes if that person is not paying taxes.
a true "across the board" tax cut would be a tax cut where everybody gets the same amount of money...ie 300 bux/person.
Most tax cuts are done as percentages of your income.
A 1% income tax cut means:
40K income equals 400 bux tax cut
400K income equals 4000 bux tax cut.
A difference of $3600 for the rich boy. This is why tax cuts mostly favour rich people. You know that.
The Bush tax cut lowered almost every marginal rate. It was the definition of an across the board tax cut.
By your logic, every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich because the rich pay more taxes. Therefore, "tax cut for the rich" is a redundancy. Either way calling the Bush tax cut a "tax cut for the rich" is wrong.
29 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76uzless is right.....and sh76 is right...they can't both be right?....well that's also right
No, a true "across the board" tax cut is one that cuts everyone's taxes by the same percentage. Obviously, you cannot cut someone's taxes if that person is not paying taxes.
The Bush tax cut lowered almost every marginal rate. It was the definition of an across the board tax cut.
By your logic, every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich because the rich pay is a redundancy. Either way calling the Bush tax cut a "tax cut for the rich" is wrong.
But if I was a rich man, I'd still be paying a lot of taxes...and I'd still be a rich man.
29 Jul 09
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76Your taxes cannot be cut if you don't pay taxes. Obviously. Therefore if you don't pay taxes, you aren't "on the board" in the first place. That argument is irrelelvant when discussing tax cuts. Besides, there are usually credits, or refunds given to poor people as part of the package but those refunds/credits are far below the value of the tax cut for the rich boys.
No, a true "across the board" tax cut is one that cuts everyone's taxes by the same percentage. Obviously, you cannot cut someone's taxes if that person is not paying taxes.
The Bush tax cut lowered almost every marginal rate. It was the definition of an across the board tax cut.
By your logic, every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich because the rich pay is a redundancy. Either way calling the Bush tax cut a "tax cut for the rich" is wrong.
My example was simplified but in most graduated tax systems, ie non-flat tax systems, the tax rates are applied at differring income levels and those tax rates generally increase with income.
For example:
0-10K 0%
10-50K 20%
50-100K 30%
100K+ 40%
A 1% tax cut "across the board" would see each rate above the 10K threshold reduced by one so we would see:
0-10K 0%
10-50K 19%
50-100K 29%
100K+ 39%
Now then, to understand the tax system you have to understand that if you make say $99,999your entire income is NOT taxed at 39%. Rather the first 10K you earn has no tax applied to it, the next 10-50K is taxed at 19%, and your remaining 49,999K is taxed at 29%
This means you pay the following:
0-10K $0
10-50K - $7600
50-100K - $ 14500
Total $22,100. You would have paid $23,000 so you save $900 bux (in this example)
Now take someone that makes $1,000,000
0-10K $0
10-50K - $7600
50-100K $14500
100K+ $351000
Total tax paid, $373,100. You would have had to pay $383,000 so you save $9,900
So, lets review. Your middle class dude gets $900 bux and your rich dude gets $9,900. That's what is referred to as "across the board" tax cuts, where the "Board" is the levels of taxation. "Across" means ALL. So "across the board" means "alll levels of taxation are reduced".
The beef is that this is not an equitable distribution of cash. Governments could reduce part of only one of the levels. Say the first 10-50K level in this example. It would mean that EVERYONE gets the same money returned to them. By reducing all income tax levels you are ensuring that those people with incomes below the higher tax levels don't receive any benefit.
Rich people benefit when the lower tax levels are reduced the same as middle class people do. But when you also reduce the upper income tax levels, ONLY THE RICH PEOPLE benefit.
This is why "across the board" tax cuts benefit rich people more than they do the poor and middle class.
(It explains why politicians are being dishonest when they say "we are going to bring in tax cuts aimed at the middle class" because rich people get the same benefit too"....the only tax cut that would only benefit rich dudes is if the government reduced only the upper tax level since most of us make less than $100K)
29 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzless====By reducing all income tax levels you are ensuring that those people with incomes below the higher tax levels don't receive any benefit.====
Your taxes cannot be cut if you don't pay taxes. Obviously. Therefore if you don't pay taxes, you aren't "on the board" in the first place. That argument is irrelelvant when discussing tax cuts. Besides, there are usually credits, or refunds given to poor people as part of the package but those refunds/credits are far below the value of the tax cut for t reduced only the upper tax level since most of us make less than $100K)
By reducing all income tax levels, you're ensuring that all people on every level benefit. Even those who pay nothing benefit from the Bush tax cut because they'll get a bigger "refund" based on having less income tax to offset their earned income tax credit.
The entire crux of your point, that rich people get bigger reductions from tax cut does not mean that the cut is a "cut for the rich."
Assume I buy 10 loaves of bread each week and you buy 5. The baker cuts the price of a loaf from $3 to $2. You now go and complain that his price cut favors me because I save $10 a week and you only $5. Obviously, that is ludicrous. I saved more only because I buy more, not because the cut favors me.
Any tax cut in any system that taxes a percentage of income will inherently favor someone with a higher income. That doesn't mean it discriminated in favor of the people with higher income. In fact, if you look at the cut as a percentage of what they generally pay, I'd bet the Bush tax cut did more for the middle class.
30 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76How can you say this? Did you not understand my example? Your income is taxed differently at different dollar values. You are assessed MULITIPLE tax rates. You don't pay ONE TAX RATE.
[b
Any tax cut in any system that taxes a percentage of income will inherently favor someone with a higher income. That doesn't mean it discriminated in favor of the people with higher income. In fact, if you look at the cut as a percentage of what they generally pay, I'd bet the Bush tax cut did more for the middle class.[/b]
In my example, if you kept the tax rate for $100K+ at 40% but lowered the others, then EVERYBODY would have saved $900.
Do you not understand this?
By ALSO lowering the upper tax rate, you give rich folks an extra $9000.