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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Oct 19, 2006
Dr Guy

In addition to BOTH Presidents Reagan and Bush approving all the tax cuts and spending bills, it was at the insistence of Reagan and Bush that the tax cuts took place. The tax cuts DID NOT originate in Congress. Congress rubber stamped the tax cuts proposed by both Presidents!


Then the "congress" is just as much at fault for "rubber stamping" them.
on Oct 20, 2006
Then the "congress" is just as much at fault for "rubber stamping" them.


It does not matter who signed what or who rubber stamped what. This was not about who shot sam, but who plays politics with semantics. When you hear a politician say they are eliminating taxes on the poor, ask them about State and SS taxes. Chances are you will be rudely escourted from their presence as he preens his tail feathers for the cameras.
on Oct 23, 2006
When you hear a politician say they are eliminating taxes on the poor, ask them about State and SS taxes. Chances are you will be rudely escourted from their presence as he preens his tail feathers for the cameras.


you keep crowing this falsehood over and over. can you even provide an example of someone being "escorted out?"

this is nonsense guy and you know it. the conversation is usually a lil more specific. i made 1 gaff and wasn't specific enough for you, and you have used that as if that is what everyone says.
on Oct 23, 2006
you keep crowing this falsehood over and over. can you even provide an example of someone being "escorted out?"

this is nonsense guy and you know it. the conversation is usually a lil more specific. i made 1 gaff and wasn't specific enough for you, and you have used that as if that is what everyone says.


First, I know of no gaff that was made. I took a statement you made and took it on my own tangent, so I fail to see where you made a gaff. This is not about you, but I attributed you as my inspiration.

An example of someone being escorted out? Surely you jest. The reports are rife with examples on both sides of people, some actual hecklers, others just perceived by the guest of honor as being hecklers being escorted out for asking simple questions of their elected representatives. That is not a national problem, but happens even on the local level, as happened about 6 months ago at a board meeting in a nearby locality.

Besides, why are you resurrecting this? You stated your piece, pointed out an error in your name on my part, and that seemed to be it. I merely responded to Dr. Miller last friday on a point he was making.
on Oct 23, 2006
The Congress is just as much at fault as Presidents Reagan and Bush 43. In 1981 the Democrats believed what Reagan said that "IF CONGRESS WENT ALONG WITH HIS TAX CUTS THE BUDGET WOULD BE BALANCED BY 1985!" That did not happen. In 2001 the GOP controlled Congress and even after the experience with the Reagan tax cuts and spending increases did the very same thing at the insistence of Bush 43. Both times ended with the SAME result-- higher increases in the National Debt and in the interest we are required to pay EVERY YEAR!
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4