Does it anger you that the elite of your country is robbing its citizens blind?

[MOBIUS]

Or are you trying your best to make it to the top 1% so you can join them?

Now I understand why the symbol of the Illuminati is on your money!

[chequita guevara]

Hey, we could all win the lottery. Then we'll be glad we had this tax cut.

[GePap]

Yeah, my family is in the 23% tax relief bracket!!!

And yet, I do not support the tax cuts?

Weird.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

nope. that seems fair - to me!

[Bereta_Eder]

this chart is wrong

you sure you dont have it upside down?

[Giancarlo]

Considering the Top 1% pays the most taxes.. who really is being robbed? $53,000 for a tax cut is nothing compared with what they would pay in total.

[Japher]

Yup, and nope it doesn't bother me. The idea of the tax cut is to increase spending. If you would compare that table to those who hold the most wealth then would see the logic.

[Q Classic]

well, a)i am

trying your best to make it to the top 1% so you can join them

.

b) it doesn't bother me so much, because the government doesn't know how to handle money in the first place. it'll give it to anyone.

[rah]

It's about time I got more relief. Glad I voted for him.

RAH
And it is hard to provide tax relief to people that don't pay taxes.

[orange]

Originally posted by Japher
Yup, and nope it doesn't bother me. The idea of the tax cut is to increase spending. If you would compare that table to those who hold the most wealth then would see the logic.

except that, past a certain point, the money is no longer being 'spent'.

[Vesayen]

me, but I know im powerless to stop it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher
Yup, and nope it doesn't bother me. The idea of the tax cut is to increase spending. If you would compare that table to those who hold the most wealth then would see the logic.

OK - the problem with this logic is that the government spends the tax it collects.

The real question is why it's supposedly better for these people to spend it than the government to spend it.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
Considering the Top 1% pays the most taxes.. who really is being robbed?

Considering they can AFFORD it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

it doesn't bother me so much, because the government doesn't know how to handle money in the first place. it'll give it to anyone.

Rubbish. The reason that western countries have a mixed economy is that is the most efficient kind of economy possible. Government spending on things like health care and education is extremely prudent because the private sector would fail to invest in these at the optimum level. We have taxation because of market failure.

At some point lowering taxes increases inefficiency rather than decreasing it. Given the US low position on the UNHDI and Canada's high position, guess whose economy functions better to provide its people with the resources they need.

[Japher]

Just want to point out that those in that top 1% ussually don't have "incomes" of that much, rather they receive "compensations" in that amount. Why does this matter? Compensations, beyond regular "salary" amounts are taxed either at higher rates, or multiple times. I.e. bonus' - taxed at 40% (or somewhere around there up to a certain amount). Stock options - depending on the type those who receive will be taxed twice in order to exercise the stock, or the tax will be levied to the company that issued them.

In that case, those in that top 1% are already getting reemed with taxes, and that is why they are going to benefit the most, since Bush is trying to eliminate double taxation on investments.

Those in the next catagory (210,000 earners) also generally receive this kind of compensation, but to lesser degrees.

The jump in tax cut benefits to the next two/three catagories is justifieable, since these ppl account for the greatest spreaders of wealth, and the largest pop, and IMO (biased as it may be), are best suited to rekindle the economy.

My two cents.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Fez
Considering the Top 1% pays the most taxes.. who really is being robbed?

It's not a case of robbery unless you buy into silly and incoherent right wing theories of property rights.

What you get in a market system is largely a matter of luck rather than desert. We don't have mixed-market systems because they reflect some moral order, but because they are extremely efficient at allocating resources.

Anyone who doesn't realise this basic point shouldn't be talking about the issue.

[Japher]

The real question is why it's supposedly better for these people to spend it than the government to spend it.

Because "these ppl" are more likely to invest in the private sectors of the economy; the real bread earners.

Considering they can AFFORD it

Spoken like a person who has a thread begging for money.

Agathon: Good points. I am wondering how this affects corprate finances and taxation?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher

since Bush is trying to eliminate double taxation on investments.

This is a red herring. We could divide the present tax system into five different taxes or consolidate it in one tax. It's the amount that matters.

The jump in tax cut benefits to the next two/three catagories is justifieable, since these ppl account for the greatest spreaders of wealth, and the largest pop, and IMO (biased as it may be), are best suited to rekindle the economy.

I'd like to see the evidence for these claims. Why should it matter that these people spend it instead of somebody else. If you gave more money to poor people they would almost certainly spend it on consumer goods because that's what they need the most. If you want to stimulate demand that seems like a much better option.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Agathon

The real question is why it's supposedly better for these people to spend it than the government to spend it.

Because I know how to spend my money better than some unmotivated, imcompetent bureaucrats.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Fez
Considering the Top 1% pays the most taxes.

They benefit disproportiantely from the American system, they should disproportionately pay for it.

[Japher]

Why should it matter that these people spend it instead of somebody else. If you gave more money to poor people they would almost certainly spend it on consumer goods because that's what they need the most. If you want to stimulate demand that seems like a much better option.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Because I know how to spend my money better than some unmotivated, imcompetent bureaucrats.

So Americans who tend to spend their money on foreign imports are helping the U.S. economy more than the government, which spends the money on domestic industry and infrastructure?

I have a hard time believing that. The "Incompetent Bureaucrat" line may play to the anti-government crowd, but it's devoid of substance.

[Q Classic]

Rubbish. The reason that western countries have a mixed economy is that is the most efficient kind of economy possible. Government spending on things like health care and education is extremely prudent because the private sector would fail to invest in these at the optimum level. We have taxation because of market failure.

it's prudent, yes. but the problem is, once you get down into the details, you have bureaucrats who don't know how to use the money they're given.
for example: the county my mom works for as a teacher recently spent several thousand to open up a montessori branch at select schools. however, rather than moving teachers that it already had availible that were qualified and certified by the AMI, the highest montessori educational board, they spent more money hiring brand new teachers who didn't have said certification.

then, you have all of those damned pork projects.

by and large, a good deal of government spending isn't bad. unfortunately, when you get into details, that's when it seems downright dumb.

[Boris Godunov]

But how is the spending by consumers better?

I would point you to the horrendous amount of credit card debt that the average American has to demonstrate that most Americans are probably as incompetent with their spending as any government bureaucrat. The question stands: what makes the American people any better at spending than the government?

And again, at least with the government, there is a little more assurance that the funds are being misspent domestically rather than internationally!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They benefit disproportiantely from the American system, they should disproportionately pay for it.

Well you are trying to destroy the free market... so bah! The Freer the market, the freer the people.

[Japher]

Boris: I am no economist or anything, but at least when the public spends the government still gets a portion of it, unlike if the goverment spends.

???

[Q Classic]

But how is the spending by consumers better?

because when they get fvcked over by their bad spending, they can't blame anybody else.

besides, there's a good deal of individualism here. i'd much rather have my money go to waste on things i choose rather than have my money go to waste by some other person, whom i don't like, deciding.

as for the domestic/foreign thing, well, that i have no answer to.

[Japher]

That is still a preference/opinion instead of a reason or hard translation into facts on how that would better spur the economy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

it's prudent, yes. but the problem is, once you get down into the details, you have bureaucrats who don't know how to use the money they're given.

You can always give examples of bad spending, whether or not it's by government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats. You still haven't given a general reason as to why government spending is somehow worse. In fact government spending is more accountable than private spending because incompetent governments are accountable to all the voters whereas private spending is (only in some cases) accountable to shareholders.

for example: the county my mom works for as a teacher recently spent several thousand to open up a montessori branch at select schools. however, rather than moving teachers that it already had availible that were qualified and certified by the AMI, the highest montessori educational board, they spent more money hiring brand new teachers who didn't have said certification.

Before I'd assent to this example I'd want to know why they did this.

then, you have all of those damned pork projects.

Like public health care, education, etc.

by and large, a good deal of government spending isn't bad. unfortunately, when you get into details, that's when it seems downright dumb.

One could say the exactly same about private spending.

[Adam Smith]

Agathon:

OK - the problem with this logic is that the government spends the tax it collects.

The real question is why it's supposedly better for these people to spend it than the government to spend it.

Two reasons.
1. Absent externalities (discussed below) people are better off if they can spend the money on what they choose than what the government chooses.

2. Economists estimate that in the US each dollar of taxation chokes off about 20 cents of econmic activity.

Conservatives often claim that higher income people are likely to invest the money increasing future production. However, if the government has to borrow to cover a deficit, the money comes entirely out of savings, so the economy is worse off.

Rubbish. The reason that western countries have a mixed economy is that is the most efficient kind of economy possible. Government spending on things like health care and education is extremely prudent because the private sector would fail to invest in these at the optimum level. We have taxation because of market failure.

First, why is spending health or education indicative of a market failure? Many people in the US provide for their own healthcare and education without any government involvement. Aside from public health issues (eg communicable diseases), if I spend on health or education, I reap all of the benefits. No failure here.

Second, there are vast ranges of government spending which have nothing to do with remedying market failure. Eg, corporate subsidies.

Third, there are many areas where both government and the private sector provide the same service. Examples which come quickly to mind in the US include schools, hospitals, trash collection, transportation, and electric power. Economists have found, uniformly, that the private sector provides these services mroe efficiently becauses it uses resources more efficiently.

What you get in a market system is largely a matter of luck rather than desert.

The evidence from labor economics indicates otherwise. In other words, much more of the variation in income can be explained by level of schooling or hours worked than remains in the random variation.