Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on October 18, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

There are several great debates going on today, 3 by Brad (most of the posters are anonymous, but most are keeping it civil as well).  Then Moderateman has a good one going that is now starting to digress, and I did not want to drag that one farther off topic responding to one point made, but felt it should be addressed.  It would have been much better in one of Brad's Instapundit articles.

Sean Conners made this point:

but you are correct in knowing that no democrat has suggested that they want to balance the budget by raising taxes on anyone earning less than 200,000 dollars a year in their campaigns. in fact many have called for tax cuts for "the rest of us." and elimination of tax for more poor americans.

While I have not been paying attention to exactly what the democrats are saying, for I know they are not talking "raising" taxes, they don't have to do anything to raise them.  They just merely have to wait for the last tax cut to sunset, and viola!  The taxes are going up.  But I did not actually want to discuss even that here as that is a debate in itself.

Instead I want to concentrate on Sean's statement.  Let us for the sake of argument assume it is true and that democrats really do have a plan (that would be one).  So they eliminate taxes on all poor people.  OK, first we have to define what poor is, and then what we mean by eliminating taxes on them.

OK, for the sake here, lets say that poor is any family of 4 making less than $40k/year.

Now here starts the problems.  The first problem is that while today,  a person making $40k may be considered middle class, that was not so 50 years ago.  When the Income tax amendment was passed 100 years ago, it was only supposed to tax the wealthy, and then only 1%.  Well, any working American knows that is not true today.  So what happened?  Wages went up, but the tax stayed the same or went up in rate.  Not until Reagan did we get indexing for inflation, and then not totally.

So the democrats say they only want to soak the rich.  Rich being over $200k.  Today.  So we soak them.  In 20 years, $200k is going to be middle income, and then eventually poor, but the soaking will not stop.  There are 2 things certain in life - death and taxes, and to that you can add a third, a politician never has enough money to spend.  So tax cuts are rare, and not to be trifled with.

But the democrats will promise today to soak the rich and give to the poor (modern day Jesse James, aren't they?).  But they will not change that and in a few years, all of a sudden, they will be soaking the middle class, and wondering why couples need 2 incomes to merely stay even with the previous generation.

The second problem is that no democrat, OR republican can ELIMINATE taxes on any working person!  There are 2 reasons for that.  One is that they do not want to due to the most powerful lobby in America.  The second is that they cannot because they do not have the power.

The first reason, is the most regressive tax in existence, and one that will never go away, just get worse.  That is Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid tax.  Both have cut offs that leave the richest Americans not paying it after a certain amount of time, but the poor never stop paying it.  And make no mistake, you can call it whatever you want to, but the truth is it is a tax.  That one will never be touched because it is the "third rail" of politics, and the most powerful lobby, AARP, will make any politician pay with their career if they do.  So forget about eliminating that tax.  It wont happen.

The second reason, is that the politicians do not have the power to do it.  What?  A tax they cannot touch? Yes, if you look at politicians as being either state, or federal.  Federal politicians cannot eliminate state income taxes, state sales taxes (the second most regressive tax in existence), personal property tax, real estate tax, and a host of other taxes levied by state and local governments.  They do not have the jurisdiction or the guts to tackle any of those.

So when you hear a politician saying they are going "to eliminate taxes on the poor", they are lying through their teeth, and they know it.  At best they can be honest in their intentions and ignorant of taxes (but I doubt they would get as far as they did being stupid) and at worse they are using sophistry to try to get votes, knowing they cannot.  And indeed, in the near future, that they will be taxing those same "poor" people again as wages and inflation push them out of the "poor" category and into the "rich" category.


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Oct 18, 2006
. 4 ur birthday! since I cannot comment on the above!   
on Oct 18, 2006
... all we have to do is periodically re-define tax brackets to reflect inflation. That way, those who make 200k in 30 years, who you claim will be the 'new middle class,' won't necessarily have to pay more, percentage-wise, then they do now.

It isn't as if this is exactly a new idea, man
on Oct 18, 2006

. 4 ur birthday! since I cannot comment on the above!

Sure you can!  Anyone can comment, even the rich!

on Oct 18, 2006

It isn't as if this is exactly a new idea, man

But a very seldom (as in once) used one.  And they have been trying to repeal it since they passed it 25 years ago.

on Oct 18, 2006
I was the writer 'ummm' above.

So what if it has only been used once? It isn't a hard to understand concept that taxes can be indexed to inflation. Your argument fails under examination of the facts.
on Oct 18, 2006
nice of you to take a gerneral comment and turn it into a policy thing...

but before i start, if you are gonna use my name, spell it correctly please.

what i was suggesting was at the federal level, eliminate federal income taxes. what states do is up to them. ss and such is fixed, yes. maybe you misread what i wrote or didn't understand the context, which is ok,,,i just wanted to explain it more clearly.

i think ya just "nitpicked" that for your agenda.

i stand by my statement...i have seen no democrat even suggest raising taxes on people earning less than 200,000 a year in their campaign speeches or statements or anything. . that number defines the top few percent of our country currently. of course inflationary adjustments would be made over time. of course no politician at the federal level has any control at the state or local level. those are battles for those politicians.

your "slippery slope" argument is just your opinion and speculation. i don't share that view.

So when you hear a politician saying they are going "to eliminate taxes on the poor", they are lying through their teeth, and they know it.

no they are not, they are usually qualifying it more than i did. and i did that (not qualifying it) for conciseness. my article was about making some brief points, not spelling out policy in detail.

we won't be able to eliminate a gas tax or sales tax to a poor person either. but when someone at the federal level speaks of "eliminating" taxes on the poor, they are of course talking about taxes they have some control on, namely, income tax. you knew that too, and so does everyone else. again, you took a statement and twisted the intent. that's not very nice, lol.

on a lighter note,,,happy birthday and many more:)
on Oct 18, 2006

So what if it has only been used once? It isn't a hard to understand concept that taxes can be indexed to inflation. Your argument fails under examination of the facts.

no, it is not a hard concept.  And you jump too wildly too conclusions.  You debate one point of many, and then state my argument fails?  I think not. 

But to get to your one point, it has been done once.  Show me the guarantee it will be used again.  Then I will beleive you.  Not until.

on Oct 18, 2006

but before i start, if you are gonna use my name, spell it correctly please.

My Appologies.  I have corrected it.

what i was suggesting was at the federal level, eliminate federal income taxes. what states do is up to them. ss and such is fixed, yes. maybe you misread what i wrote or didn't understand the context, which is ok,,,i just wanted to explain it more clearly.

Ok, let me state here for all to see.  I took your quote, but in no way was trying to say that was your policy or what you were advocating, just showing what some democrats (the ones running, not you as you are libertarian) were saying.

But on that note, the electorate they are preaching to, do not differentiate between Aunt Jenny, and Uncle Sam, so the politicians should.  But that was not the lying or naive part that I was referring to.

no they are not, they are usually qualifying it more than i did. and i did that (not qualifying it) for conciseness. my article was about making some brief points, not spelling out policy in detail.

Before hitting this point, let me point out that a blog is an opinion, and I did not hide that this was mine.  I did throw in some supporting facts to my opinion, but no where did I say that this was God's Law and uncontestable fact.

But to this point, I have yet to hear any politician qualify it beyond the simple "taxes".  Here in Va, that is a big issue, and the democrat has stated he wants to increase revenue (how is that for a silver tongue devil - it is on tape), but denies he wants to raise taxes.  Sorry Jimmy, you cant have it both ways.

So again, yes it is my opinion, and if I implied it was your policy, I will appologize again.  It was just a statement you made in passing on another blog that I picked up on and then ran with.

we won't be able to eliminate a gas tax or sales tax to a poor person either. but when someone at the federal level speaks of "eliminating" taxes on the poor, they are of course talking about taxes they have some control on, namely, income tax. you knew that too, and so does everyone else. again, you took a statement and twisted the intent. that's not very nice, lol.

Ok, so far you and Cycloptichorn have ignored one big salient point I have made.  Given that a politician might mean only federal taxes (and tell that to the WP when it accused Bush of actually raising taxes), you both ignored FICA and Medicaid taxes.  Call them what you want, but they are the most regressive, and under complete control of congress.  And every poor person, even the one making $1 a year, has to pay it.

And on the last note, thanks!  Big 50 Friday!  Almost qualify for the AARP!

on Oct 18, 2006


no, it is not a hard concept. And you jump too wildly too conclusions. You debate one point of many, and then state my argument fails? I think not.

But to get to your one point, it has been done once. Show me the guarantee it will be used again. Then I will beleive you. Not until.


Nothing is guaranteed in life. To claim that there is no way that taxes can be kept from soaking the middle class - or even that they won't be kept from doing so - when an easily and readily available way, one that is respected by the vast majority of lawmakers, one that has been used sucessfully in the past - is ludicrous.

I didn't mean to single out one argument, but the rest of your points are assertions. Without facts to back them up, they really aren't anything other than opinion.

Why assertions? Because you discount the fact that some people, including most Democrats, feel that Social Security and Medicaid are at heart a good idea. They aren't against cutting it because of fear of AARP, but because they support the programs themselves.

Also, this
And make no mistake, you can call it whatever you want to, but the truth is it is a tax.


Is a little of a stretch. Can you name any other 'tax' that directly becomes money in your pocket, paid to you out of the funds that you and other citizens like you put into the government? You really have to stretch the idea of what a 'tax' is to call SS a tax.

on Oct 18, 2006

Is a little of a stretch. Can you name any other 'tax' that directly becomes money in your pocket, paid to you out of the funds that you and other citizens like you put into the government? You really have to stretch the idea of what a 'tax' is to call SS a tax

No, and not that one either.  It is not a savings account, not even a promise to pay.  It is a ponzi scheme that masquerades as a tax.  And badly at that.  My assertions, you decided not to address.  Whether you, me reid or Pelosi think SS is a good idea is irrelevant.  I like skunks.  But that does not make them smell good.

on Oct 18, 2006
Whether something smells good or not is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

I understand that it's very easy for you to throw around talking points about Social Security ('ponzi scheme,' etc) but the reality is that it not only works, it works well, and has done so for millions of Americans every month for quite a long time now. My grandparents receive SS checks. I would bet that the vast majority of elderly people in the US do. So it is somewhat difficult to claim that it is a 'ponzi scheme' given the fact that it has a gigantic record of success, more than the vast majority of gov't programs.

I didn't address your assertions, because there isn't any reason to; without the backing of some argument with factual basis, they are immaterial to the discussion.
on Oct 18, 2006

Whether something smells good or not is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

In case you have not noticed, this is a BLOG.  Not a news source.  hence, since I provided no links to FACTS, it is my OPINION.  However, I would expect people to realize that and not take it as gospel.  I hate having to write disclaimers every other sentence.

on Oct 18, 2006
You of course don't have to write any disclaimers that you don't wish to write; but when you use poor metaphors and fail to provide evidence to back up arguments that you have made, you shouldn't be surpised when others are skeptical of those arguments.

I note that you failed to address the meat of my post, namely, that SS has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades.
on Oct 18, 2006

You of course don't have to write any disclaimers that you don't wish to write; but when you use poor metaphors and fail to provide evidence to back up arguments that you have made, you shouldn't be surpised when others are skeptical of those arguments.

I note that you failed to address the meat of my post, namely, that SS has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades.

Forgive me for having a life.

But I did not provide facts as it was my opinion.  You want facts?  What was the original SS tax rate, and the maximum in the account.  How many times has it been raised?  How many more times does it have to be raised to be viable?  Do you know what a ponzi scheme is?  If you do not, google it.  Then you will see that SS is not working.  It is a ponzi scheme that can only survive if the base continues to increase.  A supposition that the evidence does not support.  No, you have done nothing but what you accused me of, and badly at that.  I wrote an opinion.  You supposedly refuted some of it with facts, but provided none.  That is your choice.  But do not call the kettle black pot.

on Oct 18, 2006
Wrong again; I did present a fact, namely, that Social Security has worked successfully for millions of Americans for decades. That isn't an assertion or an opinion, it is a fact. Such a universally recognized fact that noone even argues that it is true.

I took your advice and googled 'ponzi scheme.' It wasn't very illustrative of anything other than the fact that you don't understand how Social Security works very well. Critics of the program talk about how the program will fail at some point because the numbers of investors will be far smaller than the number of beneficiaries. And this is true to a point. But it leaves out several very important facts:

First, Social Security currently enjoys a large surplus. This money could be used, invested, in order to increase the life of the program tremendously. But it isn't, because our gov't steals this excess money in order to balance our current budgets (which they can't even do with the stolen monies). Therefore, those who attack the Social Security program as being financially unstable need to first address the fact that it isn't being allowed to operate as planned. It would be like claiming a Bank isn't profitable, while ignoring the theives who are stealing money every day from the bank.

Second, it is always some point in the future where the program is said to go 'bankrupt.' This is erroneous, however, because the term 'bankrupt is mis-used. During the last election cycle, we saw claims that the program would be bankrupt in what, 2047? 2043? Some date 40 years from now, for sure. Turns out that this is the date that, if we keep stealing money from the program, SS will only be able to cover 75% of its expenses with the monies it takes in from paychecks. This is misleading, because a gov't program that only covers 75% of its bills isn't bankrupt. Last year, our gov't ran over 570 Billion dollars of debt up. We didn't pay 30% of our bills as a nation. And, are we bankrupt? Nope. Why is it that some government programs are encouraged by Republicans to run in the red continually, while others are called 'bankrupt' if they run less in the red then our current government does? Because they help the poor, of course.

Third, no government program is designed to provide a perfect solution to our problems, in perpetuity. SS isn't perfect. It won't work forever. But if we stop stealing money from the Trust Fund, it will work for another hundred years or so, easily. There is some evidence that the rate of population growth in the US is tailing off somewhat, and that will help as well. To criticize SS for the fact that it will be unable to pay its bills in some nebulous point in the future is ridiculous. NONE of our gov't policies will work in the long run. ALL of them will have to be adjusted from time to time to reflect our new situation as a society. SS is no different, yet you and others persist in treating it differently because it helps the elderly poor, who you apparently believe are not deserving of help from fellow members of society.

A Ponzi scheme will not make money for anyone, except a few people at the top. SS has ensured the survival of literally millions of people who are at the bottom of the program. Comparing SS to a ponzi scheme merely reveals that you are confused about the definition of one of the two terms under comparison, or that you need to do more research than merely reading the list of talking points.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last