Forums | MacLife

The key point Stiglitz makes is that Bush's stimulus package would do little in the short run.  It's hard to disagree with him on that point.  But Stiglitz also seems to be implicitly agreeing with the Administration that a stimulus package of some sort is necessary to prime the pump, get the economy moving again, etc.  I'd argue (and I wouldn't be surprised if 10 different Econ. Nobel Prize winners agreed) that both Stiglitz AND Bush are wrong in this regard.

I am so tired of the old "tax cuts for the rich" routine.  It's a badge of ignorance.  Who do you think bears the bulk of the tax burden?

I kinda quit paying attention to Nobel prizes when Arafat was awarded a peace prize.

If he were truly interested in creating an "economic stimulus package," he'd cut taxes for the working class. People who are living from paycheck to paycheck are much more likely to spend their tax return money on goods and services.

Go ahead, offer me suggestions.  How much of a tax cut should people earning under $20k a year get?  In actual dollars, how much money would you give them?

Blow it out your a-hole chump.

Hey!  Watch the language...

Shut up idiot.

At 20K a year, that's $167 a week take home. (claiming 0)
20 a week cut? 40 a week cut? $60 a week. Might as well pay nothing.
Dollar for dollar, the poor recieve more bang for thier dollar in taxes than a rich man.

Uh, I am missing something here.  How did you come up with that number?  20K/year is $384.62 per week gross.  How much of that is taken in Federal Income Taxes?  Anyone?

CRAP! I did it for $10K oops.

I was wondering how that happened.    I know that $20K doesn't give up 50% even with state, fed, social security and medicare taxes combined!

I am so tired of the old "tax cuts for the rich" routine.  It's a badge of ignorance.  Who do you think bears the bulk of the tax burden?

What do you mean by "bulk of the tax burden"?

My problem with this "defense" of cutting taxes for the rich is that it tends to use all sorts of weird math with no regard for the reality of people's lives.

For example, these arguments often show how the upper class pays X-actual-dollars in taxes, and that this number represents a certain percentage of all taxes collected by the government. Yet what this actual-dollar amount equals as a percentage of the upper-class's income is never talked about.

It also ignores the fact that the middle class could give up a much greater percentage of its income and never come close to paying in actual dollars what the upper class pays.

So why is this a meaningful comparrison? When you consider what the impact on the lives of the middle class would be if we tried to "equalize" this alleged "tax burden," such a question becomes doubly important. A billionaire could spend one percent of his income in taxes, and in actual dollars it would be more money than a middle class family would know what to do with -- an amount in actual dollars that could significantly change the course of that middle class families collective lives. So who actually has the greater "burden" here? It is no burden at all on that billionaire -- or even on a millionaire -- to give up such a small percentage of their income regardless of what the actual dollar amount happens to be.

I'm not in favor of high taxes for anyone, or of the government mismanagement that tends to create such a high tax demand in the first place. Nor do I think wealthy people should be unnecessarily penalized just for having money. (Some people like to say that simply demanding more in actual dollars from the wealthy is a form of punishment, yet I've never heard an explanation of how those people actually suffer because of it.)

I think that putting this issue in the context of a "tax burden" is misleading. We should look at it in terms of the burden put on people's lives. Until the "tax burden" argument starts taking that into account, I'm not going to consider it to be very meaningful.

There's a reason the rich pay so much more money in taxes than anyone else: it's because the income gap in the US has widened to a canyon.

There was a long but interesting analysis a few months ago (I'll see if I can remember where I read it) that said that if you take the richest 1% of America out of the equation, then the numers show a standard of living on a par with the poorer members of the EU, like Greece or Portugal. It also found that, statistically, the economic structure of the US nowadays is almost exactly where it was in the first 20 or 30 years of the 20th Century, when a small number of robber-barons owned the country lock, stock and barrel.

Anyway, the tax situation nowadays is sticky. The country has basically given up on the short-lived idea of redistributing wealth (believe it or not, once upon a time, auto workers earned as much as (or more than) their top managers).

The way I see it, if you accept the fact that the rich pay the bulk of the income taxes, and add to it the fact that the voter turnout is creating a situation where they're the only ones who consistently vote, not to mention make campaign contributions, you quickly realize it's creating a country by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich.

Is this a bad thing or not? I guess only time will tell.

And for what it's worth, I consider economics to be a bullsmurf science. I think it's stupid they award Nobel prizes for economics but not worthy things like painting or engineering.

fuel the economy

Whose?

I am so tired of the old "tax cuts for the rich" routine.  It's a badge of ignorance.  Who do you think bears the bulk of the tax burden?

Blow it out your a-hole chump.

And the reason why I'd want to reply to you seriouisly is....

I kinda quit paying attention to Nobel prizes when Arafat was awarded a peace prize.

But Kissinger was A-Okay?  Geez.


If those making 200k/year get an extra few hundred, they probably won't spend it.  They probably don't spend what they have now.  Someone making 20k/year will spend the extra money, they need it.  A larger tax cut for the poor will help everyone.

If those making 200k/year get an extra few hundred, they probably won't spend it.

So what?  Savings and investments also channel money to people who need it.