Text 3312, 103 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:22:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3785.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <pdnla2t7qsra18jp8h0v0slosef3t2q3h9@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-966167.16130201072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:26:30 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f8dja297leq2tclicoivmathj7snlpoab6@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:55:17 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> What's more, we've become much richer and taxes haven't gotten any
>> higher. So what's the problem? Basically that taxes have been reduced
>> for the rich and increased for everyone else, and that the rich are
>
>It as an across the board cut.

It looks that way because that's what they want you to think.

In fact, even if most of the money and benefits hadn't gone directly
to the rich, which is to say each rich taxpayer saved a /lot/ more
money on his tax bill than each middle class taxpayer, the actual
scenario was more like the following:

- Republicans cut taxes but not unfunded mandates

- States have to make up the difference by raising taxes

- State taxes tend to be regressive, e.g., the sales and property
taxes

- As a result, the tax burden shifts further from the rich to the
middle class and poor

We've seen this all across the country.

>> far richer now than they were while the poor and middle class haven't
>> seen a gain. So regular people feel put upon, feel that they're being
>
>I'm mddle-class (at least, I think so - others may differ)
>
>> taxed to death. And they're right: the after-tax income of the
>
>So you're arguing for a tax cut?

Thing is, you can't really say, because it's entirely contingent upon
what Congress does -- whether they stop funding so many pork barrel
projects, what have you. That's because I believe it's irresponsible
to address spending that you don't agree with by running a deficit.
Deficits have their place, but it's a place that should be determined
by economics, e.g., the need for Keynesian remedies during a
recession, and by emergencies like major wars, not one that should be
determined by fiscally irresponsible vote-grabbing or a desire to
"starve the beast," as conservatives put it when they invented the tax
cut plank as a tool to attack social spending. Also, some tax
increases could actually save the voter money, and I'm in favor of
those: universal Medicare coverage, for example, would apparently
return significantly more on the dollar than private insurance does.

So I'd say more for a shift in the tax burden back from the poor and
middle class in the direction of the rich. That would result in a
middle class tax cut if spending were kept at current levels and we
didn't do anything about the deficit, but since I think we have to
address the deficit it would more likely result in some degree of tax
restoration for the rich and little change in the middle class tax
burden.

>> wealthiest Americans has increased by 210% in the last 30 years or so,
>> while the after-tax income of everyone else has stayed static or gone
>> down. The obvious solution here is to spread the wealth a bit by
>
>The money goes to the governemnt, where there's a good bit of wasteful
>spending, agreed?
>How much do you think would go to "everyone else"?
>How much would wind upbeing lost, since income that could be used to grow a
>business, now goes to the govt?

I don't think one can answer those questions. But I don't think
they're central. The government should spend what it should spend
based on the nation's needs and economic concerns and resources, not
more. The government should take in enough to pay for what it spends,
justifiably or not, except in time of war or when deficit spending is
necessary to stimulate the economy.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)