Do you support the tax cut recently enacted by our federal government?

  1. This tax cut is controversal. Debate away!

    Oh yea. . . feel free to just vote.

    It would be interesting to read your rational of your vote, though.

    Last edit by Ted on Jun 5, '03
    •  
  2. Poll: Do you support the recent Federal Tax cut?

    • Yep!

      56.52% 13
    • Nope!

      39.13% 9
    • Honestly. . . I don't give a damn . . . .

      4.35% 1
    23 Votes
  3. 62 Comments

  4. by   Ted
    To help get the ball rolling on this debate, here's an article from the 6/5/2003 New York Times opinion page.

    Debate away!

    ________________________

    The Poor Held Hostage for Tax Cuts

    Millions of low-income families were cruelly denied child credits in the administration's latest detaxation victory. Now, with consummate arrogance, Republican leaders in Congress are threatening another irresponsible tax-cut bidding war as the price for repairing the damage. "There are a lot of other things that are more important than that," said Tom DeLay, the House Republican majority leader, signaling that revisiting the child-care issue will open the door to even worse deficit-feeding tax-cut plans. Mr. DeLay at least offered unabashed candor instead of the crocodile tears of other Republicans. They are now embarrassed over the furor that low-income families were deleted in the final G.O.P. deal on the tax-cut boon weighted so shamelessly last month to favor the wealthiest Americans.

    There is a clear and sensible solution to restore the $400 child-credit increase to the working poor in a Senate proposal from Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, and Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine. Their measure, which would cost $3.5 billion and help nearly 12 million children, would be paid for by eliminating some of the tax-shelter abuses that fed the Enron scandal.

    Republicans are scrambling for political cover now, fearing the wrath of the mythic soccer-mom voting bloc next year. But the rival child-care solution being offered by Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the finance chairman, introduces a whole new scale of irresponsibility to the tax-cut games. This would expand the credit to 6.5 million low-income households, although not to minimum-wage earners of less than $10,500 a year. But at the same time, the upper-bracket limit would be generously, gratuitously raised another $40,000 to benefit families earning up to $189,000, hardly the neediest among us. Plus the credits would be made permanent instead of temporary, as currently enacted.

    This makes it a $100-billion-plus budget-busting measure lacking the cost offsets of the sane and prudent Lincoln-Snowe approach. The fiction of Republican leaders' promises to contain the deficit damage of their tax cuts is becoming clearer with each wad of debt rolled onto future generations.
  5. by   FROGGYLEGS
    I predict that this discussion will also be very interesting. I think I'm gonna stay out of this one for a bit though and try to get my thoughts in order.
  6. by   Ted
    It's copied from the "Capital Punishment" debate which was where I originally posted this.
    ___________________________________

    I judge society by how it takes care of itself. By in large we do a pretty good job. But there's always room for improvement.

    The tax cut was a step backwards. THE most deserving of a tax break (whether they pay taxes or not) are the working poor. It was a slap in their face, in my opinion. It also examplifies a continued growing and thoughtless mentality which exists in our society: the "The Quick Fix" attitude.

    I'm not rich. I paid MORE taxed this year then ever (and will not receive a refund).

    I also have no problems with my tax dollars to help my fellow citizenry . . . for eduction (ALWAYS for Eduction!!!), to provide supplimental food for those in need, to provide assistance in healthcare, to provide adequate and fair legal representation when needed, to act as source of recourse against unfair, unethical and downright wrong business practices (which is a huge and growing problem for all of us consumers!!!)

    Now, I used to work for a government agency (for New York state). It was a short-lived work affair, admittedly. But it was an important job for me for one reason. I had first hand experience in seeing a government agency work for its citizenry! The name of this agency is The Commission for Quality Care for the Mentally Disabled . Basically, it's an important advocate and voice for those who have no voice: the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled, and the psychiatric populations. The one thing this agency does NOT need is less money. It's already underfunded. Because of this, it simply can't do as much work as it could be able to do because of some of the obscene budget cuts inacted within our state and federal governments.

    I see our political environment taking a dangerous swing towards the "right" (or economically and socially conservative) direction. This is terribly wrong and I predict will adversely effect us all in the long run on many levels.

    In my opinion this economically and socially conservative direction will exemplify the worst that a society can do in caring for itself. It's no where near the center. And very, very far for the "left" of things that some people will try to claim.
  7. by   Tilleycs
    LOL! It's funny, when I was typing my responses in the "Capital Punishment" thread, I kept thinking, "Maybe we should make another topic out of this - the stuff I'm typing has NOTHING to do with capital punishment! You beat me to it!

    I'll copy and paste what I put in the other threads:

    Efiebke, I understand your point about the tax cut, but I disagree with you. I heard on the radio the other day that the top 50% of wage earners in this country (which I'm pretty sure includes all of us) pay somewhere around 97% of ALL the federal taxes. "The poor" barely pay taxes as it is. Some of them don't pay taxes at all.

    I don't know why people never explore their hatred/envy of "the rich" (not directed at you personally, just my own view). They don't like taxes being taken from their own paychecks, but they have NO problem with more money being taken from "the rich".

    I'm not rich (by ANY shade of the imagination), but if I don't want more taxes being taken from me, should I think it's o.k. for more to be taken from someone else? They're not "giving" money to "the rich" - they're letting them keep more of WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY EARNED. Isn't that what we always complain about - not being able to keep what we've already earned?

    --------------------

    Efiebke, I admit to being a conservative - I'm conservative as a person, so I tend to line up more with conservative thinking. I'm curious, would you prefer things to be more "liberal", and the answer to everything be a social program that WE pay for? I think that's just as dangerous as you are portraying "this conservative approach".

    I don't have a problem with some of my tax money being used to help people - but where does it end? And is it the government's job to be doing it all? You could justify taking everything we earn to help the poor, the underprivileged, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in supporting charity - with my money, my time as a volunteer, and donating items as well. If I were able to keep more of my money, I'd be able to give even more to charity. I know that not everyone shares that intention for their money, but that's part of why I am in favor of tax cuts.
  8. by   Ted
    Tillyeycs. You're bringing up good points! Here I am compulsively and somewhat neurotically checking in on this thread to see its progression. . . and I'm told, by my loving wife, "Don't spend too much time on the computer!"

    :chuckle

    Ummm. . . . If I go to work tonight, and it's another slooooow night, I'll have tons to time to collect my thoughts and respond.

    If I get called off work because of a low census, I'll have to add more words of "Ted's Wisdom" (or lack of widsom :imbar ) at a later date.

    In the meantime, between your point of view and my point of view. . . there's tons of room for further discussion and debate!

    Have fun!

    Ted
  9. by   Tilleycs
    LOL! No problem, bro. We probably have more in common that different on this. I won't be cutting and pasting articles (i.e., other people's words), though. If you copy and paste a long one, I have to be honest and say that I probably won't read it. If I want to read articles, I go read articles. If I want to discuss things, I go to BB's like this.

    Later!
  10. by   H ynnoD
    I don't think it should have been done.Like the first one, where we got checks back in July.I look forword to this next check,but think the money should be used for social security or medi-care improvements for the elderly.But that will never happen and like Tilleycs stated when I was poor I didn't pay that much in taxes.If they want to help the poor,Keep raising the miniumn wage and get the economy back on its feet,so there are jobs for the people who need them...
  11. by   angelac1978
    if they don't pay taxes then how can it be called a tax rebate, refund, credit, etc??? I won't get a "refund check" either, not because I don't make enough but because I don't have any kidos to claim! for those who are so supportive of extending this "credit" to the working poor, (not directing this at anyone in this thread really!) why not call it what it really is? its welfare plain and simple. Its conditioning people to become more and more dependant on their government instead of taking responsibility for their lives and making something of them, like say, those top 50% income earners who pay the majority of the income tax in this country. Anyone ever heard of "Atlas Shrugged" very interesting book. What would happen to our mega-government and all of the needless social programs (not medicare, and programs for those who truely can not help themselves, ie children and the elderly) if these top 50% income earners decided to take their incomes and go somewhere else?

    sorry, didn't mean to break into a tirade. but never in my short life have i heard that the idea of allowing people to keep more of their own money through tax cuts is somehow "robbing" the poor of money that they "deserve" dangerous rhetoric, imo

    A
  12. by   WashYaHands
    I'd like to give you an example of a working poor federal income tax return for 2002. Divorced woman who makes $15,866 in wages, files head of household, claims herself and one child dependent. Federal taxes witheld were $92.00 (this means the entire year she paid in $92.00 for fed. tax). She's a student, so her adjusted gross income is adjusted by $3,000 for tuition and fees, she takes the standard deduction of $6900 for filing head of household. She also deducts $6000 for 2 exemptions (herself and her child). This leaves her with a taxable income of zero. Because her income is below $29,201 and she has a child, she qualifies for earned income credit of $2,129. She also receives an additional child tax credit of $553.00. This woman ends up getting a federal income tax refund of $2,774.00. She paid into the system $92.00.

    Millions of low-income families were cruelly denied child credits in the administration's latest detaxation victory.
    In all honesty, I don't think journalist who analyze this issue even have a clue about the tax system as it pertains to the poor. Even if they completely eliminate the child tax credit, this woman would get a refund of $2,129, hardly cruel in my opinion.

    Linda
  13. by   angelac1978
    wow thats more of a refund than I got and my hubby and I actually pay taxes. I guess I need to pop out a couple of kids so I can get my hands on some of those credits.

    A
  14. by   Tilleycs
    Good example, WashYaHands. For those claiming that "it's not fair" to "give" all this money from the tax cut to "the rich" - is that example FAIR? Should someone who has only contributed $92 get a check for $2,774.00? Is THAT fair?

    A lot of people who are wealthy/successful are that way because they've worked and sacrificed their BUTTS off for a LONG time. But once they get successful, all the people who DIDN'T do the same amount of work (or who worked as hard but not as smart) think they're entitled to the same reward. If you didn't do the work, you don't deserve the reward.

    And raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. The minimum wage, in a way, is a price control. If companies have to pay their workers more, guess how they're going to get the money? They're going to have to raise their prices. Minimum wage is a starting point (and is good motivation to strive for more - if it's a high wage, why would they need to strive for more?), not someplace to stop. If you do a job that anybody could do (i.e., requires no or little education and/or training), why should you get paid the same as people who HAVE gone to school and gotten extensive training?
  15. by   angelac1978
    Originally posted by Tilleycs

    And raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. The minimum wage, in a way, is a price control. If companies have to pay their workers more, guess how they're going to get the money? They're going to have to raise their prices. Minimum wage is a starting point (and is good motivation to strive for more - if it's a high wage, why would they need to strive for more?), not someplace to stop. If you do a job that anybody could do (i.e., requires no or little education and/or training), why should you get paid the same as people who HAVE gone to school and gotten extensive training?
    good point tilley. another thing i have personally seen employers do when the min wage is raised is to either lay off a few people or stop hiring and require more work out of t heir existing employees. So really no economic growth is achieved.

    A

close