Bush's Tax Cuts Are Unfair ...

[Spicy McHaggis]

To the rich.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004, at 4:20 AM PT

The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend) are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.

I know there's a lot of hype to the contrary, but look at the numbers. If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.

Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. Here's the big picture:

Continue Article

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.

That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance—the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

Moreover, if you break that top quintile down into finer pieces, you discover that the super-rich weren't treated much better than the near-super-rich—and certainly no better than the middle class. If you were in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, your tax cut was about 11 percent. If you were in the top 1 percent, your tax cut was still about 11 percent. And if you were in the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Then you got about a 12.7 percent cut—almost exactly the same as the median taxpayer.

Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that's true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term "tax cut." In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody's going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president's been cutting the taxes of today, he's been raising the taxes of tomorrow.

And who's going to pay those taxes? The "cuts" of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it's been in recent memory, and that's a hard sort of change to undo. We got where we are by cutting taxes mostly for the poor and the middle class; to reverse that, you'd have to raise taxes mostly on the poor and the middle class—and think of the outcry that would cause.

So in the not too distant future, most of us will be paying higher taxes, but the rich will be paying a larger share of those taxes than anyone would have expected before the Republicans came to town. How should we feel about that?

My own opinion is that the rich already pay too much—it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he receives 30 times as much in government services, which strikes me as implausible). If you share my sense of fairness, you'll join me in condemning the president's tax policy.

But if, on the other hand, you believe that the tax system should soak the rich even more than it already does—or, to put it more genteelly, that the tax system should be more progressive than it already is—if, in other words, you are a mainstream Democrat—then George W. Bush is your guy.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201


Keep in mind ... this is Slate, folks.

[Rob]

This is the most perfect example of numerical manipulation I have ever seen, and you fell for it.

He talks in percentages and multiples, but uses them interchangably. You can't compare a percentage cut to a low-class income tax range to the actual amount of tax taken from a high-income tax bracket.

To break it down... If somebody is taxed 10% on their $10,000, it's $1000 in tax. If somebody is taxed 5% on their $1,000,000, it's $50,000. Now, what he's saying, is that the "rich" person is being taxed 50 times more. Wow! How inequitable.

[SatelliteEyes]

Does the author ever actually mention what the tax % is?? He talks in terms of cuts and how many more times a rich person pays but doesnt actually show any numbers. It's odd.

[Rob]

Stupid article, hoping to sway the stupid. Ignore it- it might make your eyes bleed.

[cyberhound]

This is the most perfect example of numerical manipulation I have ever seen, and you fell for it.

He talks in percentages and multiples, but uses them interchangably. You can't compare a percentage cut to a low-class income tax range to the actual amount of tax taken from a high-income tax bracket.

To break it down... If somebody is taxed 10% on their $10,000, it's $1000 in tax. If somebody is taxed 5% on their $1,000,000, it's $50,000. Now, what he's saying, is that the "rich" person is being taxed 50 times more. Wow! How inequitable.
Well, does the person who pays $50,000 in taxes get 50x more government than the person paying $1000? That's the only true measure of equitability. No manipulation necessary.

[bseitz]

This is the most perfect example of numerical manipulation I have ever seen, and you fell for it.

He talks in percentages and multiples, but uses them interchangably. You can't compare a percentage cut to a low-class income tax range to the actual amount of tax taken from a high-income tax bracket.

To break it down... If somebody is taxed 10% on their $10,000, it's $1000 in tax. If somebody is taxed 5% on their $1,000,000, it's $50,000. Now, what he's saying, is that the "rich" person is being taxed 50 times more. Wow! How inequitable.

Person A paying $50,000 for the same services for which person B is only paying $1,000 may be "equitable" in some Marxist wet dream but not in the real world. Kerry and Edwards have both shown that "the rich" will always avoid paying "their fair share".

[clemson357]

To break it down... If somebody is taxed 10% on their $10,000, it's $1000 in tax. If somebody is taxed 5% on their $1,000,000, it's $50,000. Now, what he's saying, is that the "rich" person is being taxed 50 times more. Wow! How inequitable.

isn't it more accurate to say person A is taxed 5% on their $25,000, but their children get to go to college for free because of need based government grants etc. etc.... and person B is taxed 35% on their $150,000 and gets no such benefits

so person B pays $52,500 for less services than person A gets, who only pays $1,250

[bseitz]

isn't it more accurate to say person A is taxed 5% on their $25,000, but their children get to go to college for free because of need based government grants etc. etc.... and person B is taxed 35% on their $150,000 and gets no such benefits

so person B pays $52,500 for less services than person A gets, who only pays $1,250

How closed-minded of you to notice.

[chevman]

I think you guys are failing to look at the bigger picture - namely, how is it that someone has managed to make $500,000 per year?

My guess is that it is a combination of personal hard work, and having good opportunities. Opportunity is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. Sure, someone who is a multi-millionaire may not be accessing social services in the same manner as someone who makes 10k a year, but that does not imply that the millionaire has not been a recipient of govt programs or opportunities.

As someone who has benefited greatly from the public school system in our country, I feel that I have an obligation to give back to the govt. The current manifestation of this is the fact that as my income rises higher and higher I pay more taxes. Unfair, you say? Hardly, if it weren't for the good education, safe neighborhoods, and other such things, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in today. That's not an attempt to discount my hard work, as there are plenty of people I know who had similar opportunities that have done shit with their life, but I still feel a debt to the system that allowed me to pursue education and work as much as I wanted.

[bseitz]

I think you guys are failing to look at the bigger picture - namely, how is it that someone has managed to make $500,000 per year?

My guess is that it is a combination of personal hard work, and having good opportunities. Opportunity is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. Sure, someone who is a multi-millionaire may not be accessing social services in the same manner as someone who makes 10k a year, but that does not imply that the millionaire has not been a recipient of govt programs or opportunities.

As someone who has benefited greatly from the public school system in our country, I feel that I have an obligation to give back to the govt. The current manifestation of this is the fact that as my income rises higher and higher I pay more taxes. Unfair, you say? Hardly, if it weren't for the good education, safe neighborhoods, and other such things, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in today. That's not an attempt to discount my hard work, as there are plenty of people I know who had similar opportunities that have done shit with their life, but I still feel a debt to the system that allowed me to pursue education and work as much as I wanted.
Those of you feeling under-taxed are free to write as big a check to the Treasury as you please. If you feel you have "an obligation to give back to the govt.", why do they need to put a gun to your head to steal your money? Give it freely. If all those that profess to not needing tax cuts gave it all back and then some (since they apparently think the government is so terrific at solving the world's ills), we'd be looking at surpluses as far as the eye could see. I won't hold my breath. And notice they always push an income tax (which is easy for the wealthy to avoid) and not a "wealth" tax. How about a yearly 1% levy on estates worth over, say, $10 million?

[Rob]

How about quality of life? How is a millionaire's quality of life impaired by the losses I described above? The low-income person's quality of life is far more impacted by the loss incurred through taxes. If you go for "fair," nobody will be satisfied.

[bseitz]

How about quality of life? How is a millionaire's quality of life impaired by the losses I described above? The low-income person's quality of life is far more impacted by the loss incurred through taxes. If you go for "fair," nobody will be satisfied.
Low income people don't pay income taxes. The bottom 50% of income tax payers pay roughly 4% of the total income taxes collected.

[crosscg]

Low income people don't pay income taxes. The bottom 50% of income tax payers pay roughly 4% of the total income taxes collected.
And thanks to that the rich don't have to deal with pennyless beggars at thier doorsteps... sounds fair to me!

[bseitz]

And thanks to that the rich don't have to deal with pennyless beggars at thier doorsteps... sounds fair to me!
Ah, yes. The Pennyless Beggars. The liberals' Dickensian fantasy where no one can survive without the guiding hand of "Daddy". Not them of course. Only "others". The sick part is that they actually believe it.

[crosscg]

Ah, yes. The Pennyless Beggars. The liberals' Dickensian fantasy where no one can survive without the guiding hand of "Daddy". Not them of course. Only "others". The sick part is that they actually believe it.
Your right, the whole world is perfect and rosy and no one is unemployed or on hard times right now. I just see things through liberal goggles even though i'm one of the few non-liberals here.

[bseitz]

Your right, the whole world is perfect and rosy and no one is unemployed or on hard times right now. I just see things through liberal goggles even though i'm one of the few non-liberals here.
I'm sure the world will be perfect and rosy if Kerry's elected though, right? No one unemployed. Everyone gets everything. Free. :rolleyes:

[Spicy McHaggis]

Stupid article, hoping to sway the stupid. Ignore it- it might make your eyes bleed.
Keep in mind ... this is from Slate...the left-leaning version of NewsMax.

[barefoot]

the older you get you start to see taxation a little different. Being an idealistic college student doesnt cut it in the real world. The fact is the rich are paying for the poor, plain and simple. ( and dont give me any crap about a "cycle" of poverty that cant be changed)

[bseitz]

the older you get you start to see taxation a little different. Being an idealistic college student doesnt cut it in the real world. The fact is the rich are paying for the poor, plain and simple. ( and dont give me any crap about a "cycle" of poverty that cant be changed)
Once you start paying you start to see taxation a lot different.

[barefoot]

I do pay alot on my house and buisness. I am tired of hearing people that think tax breaks for the rich are unfair. Why am I taxed more because of my ambition?

[jrock5730]

I do pay alot on my house and buisness. I am tired of hearing people that think tax breaks for the rich are unfair. Why am I taxed more because of my ambition?

Are you clueless to how this country operates? What a greedy asshole!

[Seankel]

What many of you fail to understand, or choose to ignore is that the higher taxes the wealthy pay actually save them (and everyone else) a lot of money. Where does all this money go? Well some of it goes to:
Health Care- It costs a lot less to provide preventative health care to people who can't afford it then it does to wait until they show up at the emergency room.
Public Transportation - I live in LA where public transportation sucks but this city would fall apart without it. There are a lot of wealthy people who rely on employees who depend on PT.
Education- It is in everyone’s best interest that the public be educated. Many business owners make their money with employees who were educated in the public system.
Military- We send troops all over the world to protect American business interests.

If we applied a flat tax in the US all of these areas would face significant cut backs in funding making it much more difficult for the wealthy to accumulate and secure their money.

[bseitz]

Are you clueless to how this country operates? What a greedy asshole!
Yeah, greedy asshole. Don't you realize you should break your ass to provide a comfortable living for those poor, downtrodden souls who would rather not get off the couch!!! How dare you expect to actually keep most of the money you've earned. You should be ashamed.

[jrock5730]

Yeah, greedy asshole. Don't you realize you should break your ass to provide a comfortable living for those poor, downtrodden souls who would rather not get off the couch!!! How dare you expect to actually keep most of the money you've earned. You should be ashamed.

Fuck off. I don't even think you are American, and if you are, your a lousy one at that.

[nubby]

I wouldn't care so much about tax breaks if it weren't for the fact that our president is over spending.

[nubby]

Yeah, greedy asshole. Don't you realize you should break your ass to provide a comfortable living for those poor, downtrodden souls who would rather not get off the couch!!! How dare you expect to actually keep most of the money you've earned. You should be ashamed.
Ahh yes, the words of a trully estonishing individual. Every poor man is a lazy bastard and every rich man earned each penny he has. What a realist you are. I suppose Bill Gates is the hardest working man on the planet.

[chevman]

What many of you fail to understand, or choose to ignore is that the higher taxes the wealthy pay actually save them (and everyone else) a lot of money. Where does all this money go? Well some of it goes to:
Health Care- It costs a lot less to provide preventative health care to people who can't afford it then it does to wait until they show up at the emergency room.
Public Transportation - I live in LA where public transportation sucks but this city would fall apart without it. There are a lot of wealthy people who rely on employees who depend on PT.
Education- It is in everyone’s best interest that the public be educated. Many business owners make their money with employees who were educated in the public system.
Military- We send troops all over the world to protect American business interests.

If we applied a flat tax in the US all of these areas would face significant cut backs in funding making it much more difficult for the wealthy to accumulate and secure their money.

Intelligent replies like this have no place in this thread evidently.....

[bseitz]

Ahh yes, the words of a trully estonishing individual. Every poor man is a lazy bastard and every rich man earned each penny he has. What a realist you are. I suppose Bill Gates is the hardest working man on the planet.
Not the hardest working, but the most productive. Do you realize how many millions of people around the world earn their living as a direct result of Bill Gates. That's realism!!

[bseitz]

I wouldn't care so much about tax breaks if it weren't for the fact that our president is over spending.
I've got to agree with you there (although I still the taxcuts were a good idea).

[nubby]

Actually, I do know exactly how many Microsoft employs, because I get a quarterly report. 55,000 people world-wide with 35,000 here in the states. But I think you are a little off your rocker if you think that is a direct result of Bill Gates.

[bseitz]

Fuck off. I don't even think you are American, and if you are, your a lousy one at that.
blah, blah, blah. More juvenile name calling. I'm still waiting for a grownup response to any thread.

[nubby]

I've got to agree with you there (although I still the taxcuts were a good idea).
Wait a minute... let me get this straight; You think tax-cuts are a good idea even though the president is spending at record levels?

[SatelliteEyes]

Person A inherits some money or is born into it, their parents give them what they want. They party, have fun, don't work or have a job handed to them and the money they get from their parents helps them make more money.

Person B is born into a lower-middle class family and works for everything she's got. As a young woman she is married, has a child, but her husband leaves her and doesn't pay child support. she also loses the health care she used to have (from the husbands job). She has to cut back on the 40 hour a week job she used to have because she makes too much to qualify for federal assistance but not enough to pay for her and her childs medical bills or her childs day care. Now, she goes back to school part time to get a better job but in the meantime she needs some federal help.
Wow. What a lazy piece of Shit.

Person A should not have to sacrifice any of his money on taxes to help that lazy woman who is living off of the system.

Damn the tax system, it is so unfair to those who make more.

[bseitz]

Actually, I do know exactly how many Microsoft employs, because I get a quarterly report. 55,000 people world-wide with 35,000 here in the states. But I think you are a little off your rocker if you think that is a direct result of Bill Gates.
How about the millions that work making computers and related equipment, employed as consultants and software developers, and all of the other "trickle down" effects? Off my rocker? Who else made this happen? Steve Jobs?

[crosscg]

How about the millions that work making computers and related equipment, employed as consultants and software developers, and all of the other "trickle down" effects? Off my rocker? Who else made this happen? Steve Jobs?
Half of those jobs are the ones most quickly being sent off to India and China where they will gladly take a $50,000 job for $5,000. Or they are already out there in the case of most hardware. You are obviously not very informed on this topic.

[nubby]

How about the millions that work making computers and related equipment, employed as consultants and software developers, and all of the other "trickle down" effects? Off my rocker? Who else made this happen? Steve Jobs?
They wouldn't exist without windows?

[chevman]

They wouldn't exist without windows?

Were it not for Windows, millions of help desk staff would definitely be unneccessary. I can tell you have never used a Mac obviously ;-)

[mr.MikeD]

How about the millions that work making computers and related equipment, employed as consultants and software developers, and all of the other "trickle down" effects? Off my rocker? Who else made this happen? Steve Jobs?
how about the exact opposite arguement? The only thing that allows the Bill Gates of the world to get rich is the extensive middle class that uses his products, works in his offices, cleans his carpets, uses public transportation to get to the factories that build the computer, takes their prublic school kids to the doctor on paved roads. When tax day rolls around, Bill is saying thanks to all these people for his getting rich on their backs.

[nubby]

Were it not for Windows, millions of help desk staff would definitely be unneccessary. I can tell you have never used a Mac obviously ;-)
Actually I have and I have had to do tech support for a school in which consistently Mac's gave more problems then windows but that is beside the point. It's a bit ludicrous to believe that noone else was capable of creating an alternate OS and that Bill Gates is the sole reason windows exists. He did buy it from IBM, whom stole the idea from Xerox.

[bseitz]

how about the exact opposite arguement? The only thing that allows the Bill Gates of the world to get rich is the extensive middle class that uses his products, works in his offices, cleans his carpets, uses public transportation to get to the factories that build the computer, takes their prublic school kids to the doctor on paved roads. When tax day rolls around, Bill is saying thanks to all these people for his getting rich on their backs.
I think your brain has frozen over, eh? How does a society generate a large "middle class"? Answer: productivity. No single product has increased the productivity in the U.S. and the developed world like the computer. Many people are paying their bills with money either directly or indirectly generated by Mr. Gates. I'd say many more people are getting rich, if not on his back, certainly on his coattails.

[bseitz]

Half of those jobs are the ones most quickly being sent off to India and China where they will gladly take a $50,000 job for $5,000. Or they are already out there in the case of most hardware. You are obviously not very informed on this topic.
Half? Where'd you get that number, might I ask?

[bseitz]

They wouldn't exist without windows?
Possibly. But then the argument would just switch focus to a different entrepreneur.

[bseitz]

Actually I have and I have had to do tech support for a school in which consistently Mac's gave more problems then windows but that is beside the point. It's a bit ludicrous to believe that noone else was capable of creating an alternate OS and that Bill Gates is the sole reason windows exists. He did buy it from IBM, whom stole the idea from Xerox.
FYI, I'm not a huge fan of Bill Gates personally (he's never had an original idea in his life as you pointed out) or Windows per se, but there's no denying the impact they've had on our economy.

[clemson357]

Person A inherits some money or is born into it, their parents give them what they want. They party, have fun, don't work or have a job handed to them and the money they get from their parents helps them make more money.

Person B is born into a lower-middle class family and works for everything she's got. As a young woman she is married, has a child, but her husband leaves her and doesn't pay child support. she also loses the health care she used to have (from the husbands job). She has to cut back on the 40 hour a week job she used to have because she makes too much to qualify for federal assistance but not enough to pay for her and her childs medical bills or her childs day care. Now, she goes back to school part time to get a better job but in the meantime she needs some federal help.
Wow. What a lazy piece of Shit.

Person A should not have to sacrifice any of his money on taxes to help that lazy woman who is living off of the system.

Damn the tax system, it is so unfair to those who make more.

I think we can all agree that there are many gross simplifications on both side of this argument. But, while we are making up hypotheticals, let me fix this one.



You forgot about Person C

Person C wasn't lucky enough to be born into wealth either, but made a few different choices than person B. He didn't get married early, He didn't start producing kids as soon as his hormones were ready, and he didn't get involved with a low class dirt bag. Instead he went to college, in state even though his state was 49th in education, so that he could get the instate scholarship. Because he went instate he got to choose between only two decent public schools instead of the 100's person A choose from. He works hard, doesn't go out and enjoy the best years of his life, because he must keep above a 3.5 to keep his scholarship, which doesn't even pay all of his tuition. He doesn't go that far in debt during undergrad, but graduate school is a different story because they don't give scholarships to white males, even ones who score in the top 10% of the whole nation on the admissions test. He is taking out loans for all of his tuition, going tens of thousands of dollars in debt EVERY YEAR. When he gets out, he will likely be over $100,000 in debt, and he can look forward to paying that off for the rest of his life because the government, who wouldn't give him a grant because of his skin color, takes 42% of every dollar he makes. He doesn't get any more benifits than person A or B, in fact he gets less than B, because he will likely fork out another $100,000 for each one of his kids to get an education where person B's kids go for free.

[barefoot]

Are you clueless to how this country operates? What a greedy asshole!
a very intelligent response, how did I know...are you going to back this up with any thoughts? You want to know something, I am greedy. What I have I worked and sacrificed for, I have not been given anything. I have done what every American has the opportunity to do. I dont feel I should be taxed harder because I have worked 2 jobs, saved and invested my money and taken chances.

[bseitz]

a very intelligent response, how did I know...are you going to back this up with any thoughts? You want to know something, I am greedy. What I have I worked and sacrificed for, I have not been given anything. I have done what every American has the opportunity to do. I dont feel I should be taxed harder because I have worked 2 jobs, saved and invested my money and taken chances.
You should be ashamed, expecting to keep what youve earned. That's not very progressive of you.

[nubby]

You should be ashamed, expecting to keep what youve earned. That's not very progressive of you.
Ahh falling back on the ol "earning" argument. You're gonna have to do better then that. You're gonna lose your ass if you think you can win a debate on taxes based on what someone has "earned" in their lives.

[clemson357]

Ahh falling back on the ol "earning" argument. You're gonna have to do better then that. You're gonna lose your ass if you think you can win a debate on taxes based on what someone has "earned" in their lives.

very nice, dismiss what was said so that you don't have to address it as a real problem with your argument.

[clemson357]

I also like how you put quotations around the word "earned", like it is an abstract concept. It reminds me of that Chris Farly skit:

I don't "mesh well", I don't "take showers", I "smell bad", I am "obnoxiously loud", I don't "earn my own money"

[greychris]

This is the most perfect example of numerical manipulation I have ever seen, and you fell for it.

He talks in percentages and multiples, but uses them interchangably. You can't compare a percentage cut to a low-class income tax range to the actual amount of tax taken from a high-income tax bracket.

To break it down... If somebody is taxed 10% on their $10,000, it's $1000 in tax. If somebody is taxed 5% on their $1,000,000, it's $50,000. Now, what he's saying, is that the "rich" person is being taxed 50 times more. Wow! How inequitable.
I wouldn't try to go head to head with Landsburg. The guy is one of this country's foremost economists. Go ahead, though, and shoot him an e-mail. I believe he is still at Rochester. He'll wipe the floor with you. No offense, but he knows what he is talking about.

[nubby]

very nice, dismiss what was said so that you don't have to address it as a real problem with your argument.
I didn't dismiss the armument at all. It was weak to begin with because it doesn't take into consideration issues like generational wealth. If I agree that we should keep what we earn then it might be equally logical to say that we don't keep the money we don't earn. So, let's say your dad has 30 million when he dies and it should be passed on to you but since you didn't earn it you shouldn't keep it. Or what about the many executives who don't earn their jobs but know somone that gets them in. Bush is a prime example of this. He didn't earn the millions he got from having taxes subsidize his ballpark in texas. You cannot base a tax system off of who earned what, you have to base it off the needs of the nation that you and I live and participate in.

[Jake]

it's amazing to me how some people have no clue to how the system works.


1st, everyone is overtaxed. even when you 'get back' money at the end of the year, you are just 'getting back' your own money!

2nd, there never was a 'surplus' that Bush spent, there was a 'projected surplus'. Bush gave that away as soon as he got into office, but congress turned it into an advance on the 2001 taxes. He did so to keep the money out of the overspending congress.

3rd, the notion of 'taxing the rich', besides being a communist thought, never ever works. The tax didn't become 'rich' by being taxed. They give their money away to charities and such, and reduce their taxable income. You might say that's a good thing, but giving money to charities is different then giving it to the govt so they can redistribute it.


So the notion of 'taxing the rich' won't and never has worked. As always, everything will be passed onto the 'middle class' - which is basically everyone in America.

[bseitz]

Ahh falling back on the ol "earning" argument. You're gonna have to do better then that. You're gonna lose your ass if you think you can win a debate on taxes based on what someone has "earned" in their lives.
Huh? Aren't taxes the confiscation by government of one's earnings? I guess it you're not digging ditches, you haven't actually "earned" your money.

[clemson357]

I didn't dismiss the armument at all. It was weak to begin with because it doesn't take into consideration issues like generational wealth. If I agree that we should keep what we earn then it might be equally logical to say that we don't keep the money we don't earn. So, let's say your dad has 30 million when he dies and it should be passed on to you but since you didn't earn it you shouldn't keep it. Or what about the many executives who don't earn their jobs but know somone that gets them in. Bush is a prime example of this. He didn't earn the millions he got from having taxes subsidize his ballpark in texas. You cannot base a tax system off of who earned what, you have to base it off the needs of the nation that you and I live and participate in.

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the fact that some people get to a higher status because of their own work. In fact, I'd say most people, not just some. You talk about people inheriting, people being handed jobs, people owning ball parks...etc. etc. At the end of the day, Joe Schmoe who busted his ass, went $100,000 in debt going through medical school is still paying 500 times as much in taxes as his twin brother who had no ambition and got a job at McDonalds out of high school. If you can call that fair in any sense of the word, you have a very disturbing view of the world.

[EatSleepJeep]

Here's a non-partisan assessment of the tax situation. Who got the biggest cut? Big Surprise! The Wealthy!

Who got the smallest cut? Another Surprise! The Middle Class!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html