Poorest Americans to Get No Tax Rebates, Study Shows

By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 31, 2001; Page A07

For millions of Americans, the check's not in the mail.

Since Congress passed President Bush's tax plan last week, news reports have focused on one of its most striking features -- a late-summer mailing of rebate checks to 95 million taxpayers. But a study released yesterday suggested that millions of Americans will get little or nothing.

Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit research organization with the only nongovernmental computer model able to calculate the distribution of taxes, reported that almost half of those Americans in the bottom 60 percent of income earners -- more than 32 million individuals and families -- will receive no rebates. Nearly 35 million Americans who earn income and file a tax return will receive nothing, the group said.

"The people who are excited about this rebate aren't going to get it," said Robert McIntyre, director of the group, citing news stories for which poor workers and students are interviewed about what they would do with the checks. "And the people who aren't excited about it are going to get it."

How is this possible? About one-third of income earners pay little or no income taxes -- after exemptions, deduction and credits -- though they may pay substantial payroll taxes or sales taxes.

A single person will receive $300 if he or she has at least $6,000 in annual taxable income, while a couple will get $600 if they have at least $12,000 in taxable income. But taxable income is very different from income. For instance, a family of four would be able to deduct at least $18,500 in standard deductions and personal exemptions from their income before they pay income taxes, so they would need to earn at least $30,000 to get close to a $600 rebate.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 26 percent of married couples earning between $27,000 and $44,000 would receive no rebate. Among couples who qualify for a rebate in that group, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, the average rebate would be $479.

Virtually everyone in the top 20 percent of taxpayers -- who pay about 80 percent of income taxes -- will receive a rebate, and generally the full amount, the study said.

Asked about the Citizens for Tax Justice study, Michele Davis, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said: "We have a single statistic: One hundred percent of the people with income tax liability will receive a rebate."

McIntyre said "that is a fair statement," but it simply confirms that people at the bottom of the income ladder will not receive rebates.

Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill said yesterday that he hopes the government can accelerate the delivery of rebate checks, scheduled to begin in late July and continue through September.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Bush Robs Poor to Give to Rich (in@justice.com), May 31, 2001

Answers

Duh,

Those people already receive a tax credit EVERY year. It's called Earned Income Tax Credit.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), May 31, 2001.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/ind_info/eitc4.html#Who

you cut and past it dope.

-- (repugs@reasdumbasnails.net), May 31, 2001.

Once again, ‘TAX REBATES WILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE THAT PAID TAXES’. Is there something difficult about this concept? Even the dimmest bulb can calculate that higher wage earners, that paid higher taxes, will receive a bigger rebate. BTW, these high wage earners are also the folks whose taxes support all of the great liberal give-a-way programs that throw money into the sewer every day.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), May 31, 2001.

Your earned income and modified AGI must each be less than: $10,380 if you have no qualifying children, or; $27,413 if you have one qualifying child, or; $31,152 if you have more than one qualifying child.

Yeah, what's your point? That covers just the group the article is bitching about.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), May 31, 2001.

This is starting to sound great. I need to call up all of my hooker friends and negotiate a big discount.

-- Bill (Clinton@in.heat), May 31, 2001.

The rebate is 5% of taxable income up to $6,000 for singles and $12,000 for married couples. You must owe on at least some income taxes in order to realize a break of any amount, even $5.

Somehow the socialists in the Washington Post believe that you should get something for nothing. The Washington Post sure has the spin down, making the reader believe it's $300 or $600 or nothing. My statement about the EITC still stands. All those people still get that ongoing break that's denied to anyone else.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), May 31, 2001.

Lib:

My understanding was that this instant rebate thingy was supposed to increase consumer spending.

I just heard statistics of interest on NPR. They said that well over half of the people who strongly supported this "tax break" would receive little or nothing. In contrast, over half of the folks who opposed it would receive near the full refund.

You can take me. I will receive the full refund. What will I do with it? Well I have an old pickup, a two year old SUV and a new car (2000 miles on it). My house and land is nearly paid off. My total debt is 5 % of my annual income and 0.01% of my net worth. They send me $600 and I will just bank it. No increase in consumption. Don't want anything that $600 can buy.

I would prefer that they use the money to deal with retirement and healthcare programs. Just my opinion.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), May 31, 2001.

Bemused,

Then by all means, send the money back.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 31, 2001.

Dear Bemused,

My health would be greatly enhanced were I able to retire soon. Please send your $600 ASAP.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), May 31, 2001.

Tel and J:

I didn't get into this position by being stupid. You elected Bush and I will take full advantage. The rate cuts in the future will do wonders. I have my eye on this 40 ft sailboat. You should see it.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), May 31, 2001.

Was this thing *really* published in the Washington Post? This the most asinine "news story" I've ever seen in my life!

The story is that PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES WON'T GET AN INCOME TAX REBATE!!! This is NEWS??!! Wow, the Post surely doesn't overestimate the intelligence of its readers, does it?

On top of that is the insinuation that some folks should get a share of the income tax cash because they pay sales and Social Security taxes... which is ludicrous in the extreme.

And then let's talk about the fact that 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes - who's robbing whom here? Who needs the application of "tax justice" more, the bottom 80% or the top 20%?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), May 31, 2001.

RC, from what you say you seem to believe in a flat tax rate imposed with complete impartiality on rich and poor alike as the ideal of "tax justice". A single mother with two kids whose husband ran off and who works full time at $8/hr. should pay the same percentage of her income in taxes as the CEO who is compensated to the tune of $5 million/yr.

Perhaps I am over-assuming here, but it looks to me like you'd think this is would be justice, because it would be blindly equal and impartial.

There is another tradition that sees progressive taxation as being more just, because it takes into account the relative hardship imposed by the taxation. I believe in this approach.

But you know what, RC? I'll split the difference with you. I would be perfectly happy to place an equal (and low) flat tax rate on every income - maybe 10% - provided the minimum wage was raised to $15/hr. (with COLA adjustments) AND the profits on revenues over $1 million (with COLA adjustments) for all corporations doing business in the USA could not exceed 5%.

Excess profits could either be redistributed to the government or as direct rebates to customers, at the discretion of the corporation. In most cases, writing one check to the government would be cheaper than hundreds of checks to customers, but I'm willing to let the business choose. Of course, if the rebate went to a business doing over $1 million, it might push their profits into the excess range and trigger a further distribution.

How's that sound? I mean, if the issue is simply one of equality of tax rates, then this should tickle you pink!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 31, 2001.

Oh yes. I forgot one other detail. I'd want a cap on wages, salaries and other compensation earned by an individual at $1 million/yr. Below $1 million/yr. the tax rate would be 10%. Above $1 million the rate would be 100%.

But, we could all do our taxes on a postcard!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 31, 2001.

Dennis, you could use the $600 on your new TB2K.

-- bespectacled (at@you.folks), May 31, 2001.

Little Nipper, MOVE TO CUBA! Take Alex Baldwin and that stupid hook nosed heeb bitch with you.

-- Low (life@liberal.losers), May 31, 2001.

You stupid fucking repugs. What the hell is wrong with a flat tax across the board for everyone (corporations included)?! Why throw all that extra mumbo jumbo shit into the mix? Are you working for the IRS nipper? Why the hell would you want a progressive tax so that people making millions would pay more? What the fuck are you smoking? Oh I get it. Your a stupid fucking repug. Have you guys ever heard of win- win?

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), May 31, 2001.

Tony, I am lubricating like a grease gun

-- (DFD@WW.West), May 31, 2001.

I wouldn't talk to Nipper that way, or he might send his militia after you.

-- tired of little nipper's right-wing rhetoric (oh@so.tired), May 31, 2001.

Little Nipper,

I draw many conclusions from your tax wish. The most obvious ones are that you don't understand economics in the least, and that you are basically a socialist at heart.

"Excess profits"? What exactly are, "excess profits", comrade? Under your idiotic scenario, all capital would exit any risky areas (read: biotech, high tech, alternative energy, etc.)for safer domains, and the innovation that has made this country great would be stifled basically overnight.

100% tax rate on income over $1 million per year? It is easy to see that you not only don't make anywhere near $1 million per year, but that you don't aspire to ever make anywhere near that figure, either. Another poster may have hit the nail on the head when he suggested that you move to Cuba. That sounds like it would be right up your alley, old chap.



Tiny Baloney,

Just when I thought that you could never say anything more patently stupid than that with which you have already graced the forum; you give us this little gem, replete with the requisite vulgarities, of course.

Ironically, your thoughts on a flat tax are right on. However, your ignorant belief that Little Nipper's proposal could come from someone who calls himself a Republican is hilarious for its utter stupidity. That, coupled with your erroneous belief that the Democrat party would embrace any kind of a flat tax whatsoever, has me literally rolling on the floor with laughter.

Just exactly how is it that you hold a very fiscally conservative position when it comes to a flat tax, but you are too stupid to understand that it is the party that you hate so much (the Republicans), that is incredibly more likely to embrace that position than the class warfare mongering Democrats?

You are absolutely hilarious.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 01, 2001.

How about a national sales tax instead of income taxes. Wth exemptions for health care, food, and a basic housing exemption? That way the "rich" buying yachts, mansions, etc. would shoulder the bulk of the taxes. No tax attorneys, no need to file, no huge IRS administration. Savings would be exempt, and it's only when you 'blow your wad' that you get hit. Totally fair to the poor.

The dems and the repubs would never go for it, as it does'nt let them buy votes.

As for an excess profits tax, that is about the most North Korean proposal I have ever heard.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 01, 2001.

National sales tax eh? I could go for that. Would things like winning the lottery or making a killing in the stock market be exempt from the sales tax? The stupid moronic repugs have the majority in congress and hence the power to make these kinds of changes. Why don't they do it? I bet its because they like things the way they are because they have figured out ways to milk the system and line their coffers! If the system were simplified via a flat tax or sales tax then their little schemes wouldn't work anymore. Who could they screw then?

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 01, 2001.

I agree with you Tony, except you're blind to the fact that the dems would fight it just as hard. There's probably only a handful from either side of the aisle that would ever really want to dismantle the hundreds of thousands of pages of tax code as it serves their purposes too well.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 01, 2001.

"RC, from what you say you seem to believe in a flat tax rate imposed with complete impartiality on rich and poor alike as the ideal of "tax justice". A single mother with two kids whose husband ran off and who works full time at $8/hr. should pay the same percentage of her income in taxes as the CEO who is compensated to the tune of $5 million/yr."

I *am* more or less in favor of a flat tax, with the caveat that your "single mother"'s situation is still taken into account. Under today's tax system, she would pay little or no income tax - exemptions for folks in her situation should continue, I should think.

"Perhaps I am over-assuming here, but it looks to me like you'd think this is would be justice, because it would be blindly equal and impartial."

I can't help but think that it would be closer to "justice" than we are today. "Blind equality and impartiality" is a pretty good definition of the word "justice" when you get down to it, no?

"There is another tradition that sees progressive taxation as being more just, because it takes into account the relative hardship imposed by the taxation. I believe in this approach."

It's a valid approach - but at what point does it become punitive? At what point does progressive taxation serve as a discouragement to investment and entrepreneurship? We may have reached that point without realizing it. (You, on the other hand, are about to leave that point a million miles behind. ;-) I suspect that if tax rates were reduced *significantly* (say 30-50%) across the board, tax revenues would increase. Of course, I say that knowing it's highly unlikely I could ever be proven wrong ;-)

"But you know what, RC? I'll split the difference with you. I would be perfectly happy to place an equal (and low) flat tax rate on every income - maybe 10% - provided the minimum wage was raised to $15/hr. (with COLA adjustments) AND the profits on revenues over $1 million (with COLA adjustments) for all corporations doing business in the USA could not exceed 5%... [other stuff snippered]...

...Oh yes. I forgot one other detail. I'd want a cap on wages, salaries and other compensation earned by an individual at $1 million/yr. Below $1 million/yr. the tax rate would be 10%. Above $1 million the rate would be 100%."

As an aside, I seem to recall a flat tax proponent a few years ago stating that a no-exemptions flat tax of 4-5% would provide the same revenue as the current system. I have no idea who said this or where they got their figgers from... anybody?

"How's that sound? I mean, if the issue is simply one of equality of tax rates, then this should tickle you pink!"

I'm just flummoxed when the same folks who push the idea that corporations and the wealthy have too much political power turn around and advocate giving the government the ability to determine how much money one should be allowed to make and how much things should cost - a level of power exponentially greater than any private individual or company could ever hope to have.

No thanks, I'll pass on "splitting the difference".

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 01, 2001.

Tiny Baloney,

What's the matter? Don't you understand what I posted, or are you too embarrassed to admit that you hold the same fiscally conservative view of taxation that many Republicans (which you vehemently hate) do?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 01, 2001.

RC, at least my off-the-cuff proposal prompted one reply that wasn't just an insult. Yes, I purposely used the phrase blindly equal and impartial because this is a fair description of justice.

If a 4% or 5% flat tax, with the first $20,000 or so of income exempted really could replace all current revenue I would be, to put it mildly, flabbergasted. I suspect that number is so far off it came from a different solar system than the one we live in.

My concern is that banana republics don't work. The main reason they don't work is that about 1% of the population owns everything and can force the remaining 99% to toe the line through their control of the police power of government and the financial power of capital. Our country is busy proving one more time that these two powers tend to converge. If too much police power concentrates in too few hands, all the capital tends to flow into the pockets of the government elite (look at Marcos or Suharto). But, if too much capital is concentrated in too few hands, the government tends to align itself with the rich. That is where this country is trying to go.

As a simple practical matter, the only way to preserve freedom is to prevent the amassing of vast personal power with any individual. While the idea of no government intervention in the market sounds good, the reality proves very bitter. The good citizens of the USA fought a very fierce battle over this in the period from 1890 to 1910. The more you know about the late nineteenth century, the more likely you are to know what the current political debates are really all about. At least, that is my point of view.

So, while I am perfectly happy to tinker with the tax code to make it far simpler and more "just", I will not support any changes that tend to make the wealthy far wealthier - not because I am jealous of them, but because money is power and I fear the results of concentrating power without sufficient checks or balances.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 01, 2001.

I understand J. The big difference that I see is that I want all parties to win (classis win-win scenarios) whereas the repugs seem to believe in a "I win" and "You lose" system. They want more and see no problem why they should have it all irregardless if most of it belongs to others. They will walk on your back to get to the prize and have no qualms about doing it. They don't want everyone educated and getting their share because it decreases their share. So, I may hold a few fiscally conservative ideas but no way in hell do I agree with the major beliefs of repuganism.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 01, 2001.

Tony Baloney,

I disagree with your assessment of how most Republicans think and believe. I want more for my family and myself, but I only want to keep more of what is already mine, not take from someone else. Your belief in the fairness of a simple flat tax system is right as rain. Where you are off base, in my belief, is in thinking that the Democrat party is more in line with your beliefs.

The Democrat party doesn't want a "classic win-win situation"; they want to redistribute as much wealth as possible from those who have it to those who don't, and they don't care who they steal it from, and they "have no qualms about doing it". The Democrats want to keep welfare recipients in poverty for generations because then they can buy their votes with a promise of a bigger benefit check.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 01, 2001.

"If a 4% or 5% flat tax, with the first $20,000 or so of income exempted really could replace all current revenue I would be, to put it mildly, flabbergasted. I suspect that number is so far off it came from a different solar system than the one we live in."

Flabbergasted me, too, when I heard it. Again I don't vouch for the numbers or the source, and I'm pretty sure there were no exemptions involved. Maybe I'll cruise the the flat-tax bars this weekend and look for info...

"As a simple practical matter, the only way to preserve freedom is to prevent the amassing of vast personal power with any individual. While the idea of no government intervention in the market sounds good, the reality proves very bitter. The good citizens of the USA fought a very fierce battle over this in the period from 1890 to 1910. The more you know about the late nineteenth century, the more likely you are to know what the current political debates are really all about. At least, that is my point of view."

I don't see that the situation today comes anywhere near the turn-of- the-century robber-baron plague. And given that, I can't help but agree with those who feel that the left's current obsession with evil big business and "the wealthiest one percent" smacks of class warfare.

If you feel that there are specific individuals or corporations that are abusing the power that they have (and I don't doubt that many exist), attack them with facts in the court of public opinion. Organize and advertise. If you can convince the public, you can hit 'em where it hurts - attacking them legislatively is often only a temporary measure. The market really can work in your favor.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 01, 2001.

J: Where [exactly] did you get that definition for what the Democrats want? How do independent voters [like myself], who vote based on records, regardless of party affiliation, fit into your stereotypes?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001.

Too funny Anita. I guess I could say the same thing about myself. But the difference is that it's more applicable to me. Afterall, I volunteered on the McGovern/Shirver campaign. And I've been registered dem, indepen, and repub at various times in my life. Anita, when was the last time you were registered repub?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 01, 2001.

Maria: I've never been registered as ANYTHING. Of course this means I've never voted in a primary, which is the only place a party declaration is required.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001.

Anita & Maria,

The second paragraph was a little hyperbole to show Tony what his post would look like from the other side. I guess that I should have been more clear. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 01, 2001.

Tony, Lenin wanted ‘everybody’ to win also, but so far that model hasn’t flown too well.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), June 01, 2001.

J you have said that you have a lot of money. Unlike you, the majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (whether its their fault or not - face it, it is the way it is) and if they were to lose one or more paychecks in a row they would be in a world of hurt. Even though I am a libertarian my perception is that the Democrats are aware of the "paycheck to paycheck" thing and try to address it, whereas the repugs are so out of touch with the "paycheck to paycheck" reality they think everyone has the same opportunities as they do. (they don't) I don't think there are any democrats who would begrudge you your money and I have never met any who wanted to redistribute the wealth. You got things mixed up J. Thats what communism is all about - destribution of wealth. You stupid fucking repugs are all the same! Can't even get your ideologies right. What a bunch of maroons.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 01, 2001.

Sorry Anita, I thought you meant registered "independent". The point, however, wasn't lost on you, was it?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 01, 2001.

Nipper:

I must agree that there are some serious problems with your proposals.

First, "excess profits" is a silly notion, and it implies that you have absolutly no comprehension of how the free market operations. Just what do you consider "excess"? Who gets to define it? And assuming there is some useful definition (which I believe there is NOT, even in principle), these are what competition is for! Do you disbelieve in competition as well?

Second, your recommendations are stunningly short-sighted. Your destitute person is better off than kings were a few centuries back! And this vastly improved situation is due entirely to the opportunity we provide for people to become filthy rich. Not everyone succeeds, but the *effort* is what has raised our standard of living like a huge tide. If you sincerely believe that depriving people of ANY opportunity to strike it rich is in the best interests of your single mother, I can only shake my head. Punishing accomplishment is not helpful to anyone, even you.

You seem to be a victim of zero-sum thinking. To you, the economic pie is of a fixed size (let's ignore all history), so anything the rich have is *necessarily* taken from the mouths of the poor. From this howlingly false assumption, it follows quite naturally that we need to FORCE people to lose what they earn, in order to give it to those whose efforts (sic) earn nothing. The idea that this is a systematic DISincentive system does not seem to cross your mind.

So what you end up with is a straight controlled economy, overseen by a State of incredible size and power, making arbitrary decisions on the basis of what those who most WANT that power consider "just". And your idea of "just" is that those who can subsidize those who won't. Unfortunately, the track record of such States is abysmal and uniform.

One thing we've seen from a long application of progressive taxation is that eventually the "rich" are paying all the taxes. Thus, no tax cut is politically palatable, because of course such a tax cut would heavily benefit these same "rich", those being the only real taxpayers anymore. Over time, we've seen that your disincentive system minimizes the number of rich, in order to reward our least productive citizens. I agree this is the best way to keep the economic pie at the same minimum size. But is this really what you want?

Now, your next post makes more sense. Yes, most emphatically we want a middle class and we don't want to concentrate excessive power in any one group of people -- *including* politicians. I believe the best way to ensure a middle class is to provide a set of incentives that rewards accomplishment and punishes the unproductive, and we have been doing things the other way around. So you look around you and see that by rewarding lack of productivity with lots of entitlement programs, we are systematically paying people NOT to reach the middle class, which is thus declining. But the solution surely isn't to do even more of what is producing the opposite of what we intend.

[While the idea of no government intervention in the market sounds good, the reality proves very bitter.]

This is disingenuous. The reality you're referring to was indeed bitter, but the word "intervention" is too general to be useful in this context, because intervention can take on many forms, both good and bad. What you're doing here is implicitly suggesting that bad intervention is necessary because good intervention was not done!

The government's proper role, IMAO, is to police the free market to ensure that it stays free. Businesses do not like competition AT ALL. Competition minimizes profits. The robber barons were as corrupt as they were because government *permitted* this, which it should not. But the answer isn't to give similar power to the government and *hope* that bureaucrats with this much power will somehow be more benign than robber barons.

Our proper goal is to recognize that those who want power the most are both most likely to get it, and least trustworthy when they do so. So we need to *balance* power, so that one set of cads can't steamroll over any other set of cads. My reading is that you'd like to concentrate power in the hands of whoever can best convince you of their altruistic motivations. Better to trust nobody.

[money is power and I fear the results of concentrating power without sufficient checks or balances.]

But the wealthy are not that monolithic. Relatively few policies, if any, are sought or even agreed on by "the wealthy", because the wealthy are competing with one another. About all they can agree on is that they don't want to be regulated.

[If a 4% or 5% flat tax, with the first $20,000 or so of income exempted really could replace all current revenue I would be, to put it mildly, flabbergasted.]

Me too. But who said we need to replace all current revenue? Government exists to provide national defense, preserve the free market, protect the environment, and provide for public safety. These goals can be adequately reached for only a small fraction of current revenues. Massive wealth transfer programs are generally a lousy idea, rewarding unproductive lifestyles, punishing success, and only creating the illusion of a middle class. And the zillion and one porkbarrel projects designed to spread taxpayer money where it gets the most incumbents reelected are also not necessary.

Yes, I know we have a large population (of voters!) who have designed their lives around these payments, and are unable to earn a living for one reason or another as a result. THIS is what our soft-hearted policies have earned us! So our pervasive disincentive system would have to be phased out slowly.

I remember reading somewhere that to maintain current revenue levels, we'd need something like a flat 18% tax (exempting the first $15,000), and that would be for income tax only, retaining all the other payroll taxes. And that's only at the federal level, and does not include sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc. Just to give you some idea of just how expensive it is to purchase national near-poverty!

Still, the size of the tax burden is a separate issue from its distribution. And to be honest, I don't think any flat tax would be stable -- politicians would immediately begin social engineering. We'd immediately try to help "the needy" by tinkering with the tax rates, creating special exceptions for countless groups and behaviors. When you notice that those politicians primarily responsible for buying poverty are overwhelmingly backed by the poor, you get some inkling of what we're dealing with. This is the soul of cynicism. Don't buy into it, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 2001.

Tony Baloney,

On the ideological scale, a Democrat is much closer to a communist than a Republican is. The Democrats want high income taxes on the wealthy so that they can fund their welfare benefit programs. It is very similar to confiscating the wealth of the rich to redistribute it to the poor. Very similar, indeed. Also, the Democrat party is in favor of estate taxes, which is confiscating the wealth of the rich to redistribute to the poor.

On the other hand, as a general rule of thumb, the Republicans want a lesser tax burden on the wealthy, because they generally favor a fairer tax system where the wealthiest citizens don't have to pay at a 40% top marginal tax rate, while other citizens only pay at a 15% top marginal tax rate.

I am not mixed up at all, Tony. Just because you have never met a Democrat that will openly admit to it, that does not change the fact that their enormous welfare state is, under the guise of taking care of the downtrodden, nothing more than a giant mechanism for taking much from the citizenry, siphoning off much of that in layers of bureaucratic waste, and then giving what is left to those who are in one form or another, at the government benefit trough.

For the record, I have lived paycheck to paycheck. It is a situation, when it occurs, that is often the fault of the person for not living within their means, and also the fault of the federal government for taking such a large chunk of said person's income, that it is difficult to have the means of which to live within in the first place.

As you profess to be a libertarian, I would think that you would want the government to fairly tax the citizenry at the same rate across the board, and at a rate just high enough to fund the necessary and legitimate purposes of government. Which, the last I checked my copy of the Constitution, does not include a massive welfare system that, in effect, is nothing more than the federal government playing Robin Hood between its wealthier and poorer citizens.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 01, 2001.

Flint: "But the wealthy are not that monolithic. ... About all they can agree on is that they don't want to be regulated."

Your use of the word "regulated" is exactly as "disingenuous" as my use of the word "intervention". As witnessed by your other more-honest admission here:

Flint: "Businesses do not like competition AT ALL. Competition minimizes profits. The robber barons were as corrupt as they were because government *permitted* this, which it should not."

Look at these two statements closely. Think about them a while. Let them suggest new trains of thought.

You admit that the wealthy think that regulation is bad and that competition is bad. What do you expect will happen to the laws that regulate competition, when the wealthy run the government?

Do you think perhaps we might see such trends as:

The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, resulting in the concentration of the mass media among fewer than 10 major corporations which merge with depressing regularity, like AOL and Time-Warner?

The merger of major oil companies (such as BP and Amoco or Exxon and Mobil) until the original Standard Oil trust is pieced back together? The accelerated disappearance of competition in the banking industry due to mergers?

The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act so that banks can swallow insurance companies and brokerages, or vice-versa?

As I said before, banana republics don't work. The trend toward the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands has been joined by an equally strong trend where government provides less and less protection against the disappearance of competition. Dozens of industries are becoming so consolidated that collusion becomes a simple matter. Like the auto industry was in the 1960s.

My answers may not be the correct ones in your view. But the problems of wealth concentration are very real, yet no one seems to be noticing. I suspect that is because all our major media are run by HUGE corporations like GE and Disney.

Just making government smaller won't stop this trend, because all the services that will be cut will be the ones that support the middle class and poor. Also, the last few restraints on capital will be repealed. But the services and subsidies to the rich will not be touched.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 02, 2001.

This conversation would be more truthful, and thus useful, if J and Flint just admitted what Nipper is saying. Instead we get these rather lame rationalizations.

J and Flint LIKE the way things are for personal(income)reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Just would be refreshing if they admitted what many of us probably sense.

Could be way off base here, though I doubt it. Common theme amongst these Conservative types. They rattle off all this "great sounding" rhetoric, but in private they really only care about how much they can milk the situations that exist. Not saying this is J or Flint, just my experience.

-- (bush@twofaced.scum), June 02, 2001.

Nipper:

[Just making government smaller won't stop this trend, because all the services that will be cut will be the ones that support the middle class and poor. Also, the last few restraints on capital will be repealed. But the services and subsidies to the rich will not be touched.]

Yes, you raise very real points. I don't claim that left to its own unbalanced devices, either government or business will work for the public interest, and usually against it. Power must be balanced by power. So while the issue you raise is both real and frightening, I believe your proposed "solutions" exacerbate the problem rather than ameliorate it. I am also disturbed by the pattern of consolidation of power and wealth we see, but few of our current government programs do anything at all to prevent this.

Indeed, I strongly believe that our transfer payment philosophy is undermining the middle class, where economic power is most stable. I notice you do not ever seem to address this issue. You don't seem to even wonder whether making more people well off is worth the side effect of making the very wealthy even wealthier. You seem to believe that if only we TAKE from the very wealthy and GIVE to the poor, we can engineer a middle class by brute force. You come across as a firm believer in giving each man a fish every single day, and carefully not noticing that very few are bothering to learn to fish anymore.

I'm not wealthy at all. I live from paycheck to paycheck, yet I notice that eventually, governments at all levels confiscate over 40% of what I earn. Reducing unnecessary pork is NOT incompatible with protecting free markets from monopolies. And heavily subsidized poor poeple do not a middle class make, either. Poverty is much more a state of mind than an income level, and this state of mind is what we are purchasing, even though compassion might be our motivation.

Wealth per se is not the enemy, only its concentration in relatively few hands. Where we disagree is, I believe the long-term solution is to put more wealth into more hands, whereas you believe the solution is to take it out of the few hands it's in. I'd rather have as large a pie as possible, knowning this means MANY wealthy people. You are content with a tiny pie, so long as nobody has an "excessive" share (and you're willing to have a State of truly terrifying power to ensure this).

Probably we can never really agree here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2001.

We needed help. We worked and paid taxes for years, and then a series of setbacks beyond our control wiped us out. We got help. As soon as we recovered, we went back to the agency that was helping us and withdrew from the program. The administrator said we were hurting the program by withdrawing. We still qualified for help, but if we insisted on not taking it, the funding for the program would be reduced. The administrator first appealed on behalf of the other people on the program and later began to express anger. Getting off the program was far more stressful than getting on was, and that was humiliating enough. It was hard to say no, and we left feeling like we were being held responsible for doing something wrong. Programs that depend on public funding put pressure on clients to take services even after they aren't needed any more.

-- afraid to say (your@email.address), June 02, 2001.

twofaced.scum,

I can only admit that what Little Nipper is saying is wrong.

The world in which we live is vastly different than it was in the days of Standard Oil, and when AT&T was the phone company, as in, THE phone company.

I won't go into a lengthy argument here as to why Little Nipper's proposals are bad, as Flint has done just that. However, let it suffice to say that if I am forced to either take the evil of Big Business, or the evil of Big Government, I will gladly take Big Business.

It is interesting to note that you wrote, "but in private they really only care about how much they can milk the situations that exist".

Is that what trying to keep more than half of what I earn is called, "milking the situation"? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 03, 2001.

J: I'm not so sure you've looked at the tax cut legislation carefully. Maybe *I*'m wrong, but from what I've seen, the changes are temporary and will all go away in 2010 or 2011. Even the abolition of the estate tax goes into affect in something like 2004 and ends in 2005. I suppose there's some value in temporary reprieves, but we'll all be doing the "What are the tax laws THIS year?" dance for several years to come.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.

Anita,

Actually, I haven't had a chance to look into the tax law changes in detail, yet.

You have lost me, though. How exactly does that pertain to the discussion that has been ongoing on this thread?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 03, 2001.

Anita:

You are looking at a permanent condition -- politics at work. Most of this "tax cut" actuallu cuts in *after* Bush's first term expires, which the dems went along with in the hopes that it will be his only term and they can repeal the remainder before it ever happens. The estate tax is byzantine! It gradually gets reduced (the ceiling raised) until the year 2010 when (it says here) it will be eliminated altogether - for one year! In 2011, it reverts to what it is today, when the law expires!

I looked at this thing in some detail, and it's a marvel to behold. Rates go into effect, and back out of effect, like lost souls in a hall of mirrors. Marriage penalties get increased, then eliminated, then restored, then marriage is a benefit for a year, then the whole schmeer expires, or something like that. And of course, any of this that hasn't already happened can be modified into the future at any time, and what has happened can be counterbalanced one way or another.

But this is what happens when many interests collide. Always does, and probably should unless Nipper gets his way and the government becomes so powerful that the interests of the people become irrelevant. As has happened in many countries.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 2001.

Re: the stinkin' estate tax which is (tenatatively) scheduled to be eliminated in the year 2010...

Art Linkletter on Larry King Live- "I want to live ten more years just to see to it that they aren't going to get a nickel of what I've worked so hard for."

Go Art!

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.

Sorry if I misunderstood, J. Somehow I got the impression that you thought there would be benefits in the tax cut legislation.

Flint, I think my mouth opened and just hung in the open state while I read the legislation. This has got to be an accountant's dream and a taxpayer's nightmare. In addition, if folks are indeed spending more than they make, it seems to me that they'll incur more debt during the years when they get more in their pocket, just to have the old tax rates kick in again when they're not looking.

Maybe I just like knowns more than unknowns, but a constant tax rate was always something I could budget around. Even while working on a 1099, I always knew how much to set aside for taxes and knew that the rest was mine to spend. I wonder how many people will think the new tax rates are permanent.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.

Anita,

No need to be sorry. I think that there will be benefits to the tax cut. But as Flint pointed out, no tax law will ever be safe from being replaced or modified by another tax law. This law, according to you and Flint, seems to modify and replace itself! Only politicians could dream up such a scheme. I just couldn't see how your comment pertained to the ongoing discussion on this thread, that's all.

Before you Bush haters come out of the woodwork like cockroaches to point out that it was Bush who proposed the tax cut in the first place, let me say that I prefer a much more libertarian flavor to government. However, until the Libertarian party actually has a chance at winning an election at the national level, I will continue to try and ensure that the more socialist of the two major parties does as little damage as possible, all the while trying to move the more fiscally conservative of the two major parties toward a more libertarian bent.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 03, 2001.

J instead of labeling it as Socialism why not this.

YOU think it better we have policies which benefit a few, as opposed to policies which are more reflective of the majority of Americans.

-- (bush@twofaced.scum), June 03, 2001.

J: I'm a fiscal conservative also, but this administration isn't like Goldwater in it's goals. Here's something that pretty much states my opinions. It's from the "progressive" press [read "liberal]. Ponderings of the current administration

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.

scum:

If you look into it even a little bit beyond the slogans one side chants, you will see that one of the critical factors leading to the growth of the US was policies that let people reach for their own goals, more or less unobstructed.

Now, not everyone has the same ability, nor the same luck. Anytime you let *everyone* try for the brass ring, you will find two things happening. First, only a minority will actually grab that ring. And second, FAR MORE will end up with a ring than if you penalize success because, after all, only "the rich" are successful, so they can afford it!

In truth, it is our current punative policies which does most to keep those wealthy people so few in number. One of our real political stumbling blocks has been an inability (or unwillingness) to understand how a free market really works, or to trust it. When we take from the successful and give to the failures, we can SEE "fairness" in operation.

If we let things happen, they will. If we try to MAKE things happen, we only wrap failure in mountains of expensive red tape. So be very careful not to confuse our intentions with our results. We have nothing but good intentions, and nobody claims otherwise. But we know what's paved with those.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 2001.

twofaced.scum,

If the policies of the Democrat party look like socialism, sound like socialism, and smell like socialism, then I will label those policies socialism. Instead of you cringing at the truth, why not consider this:

YOU think that it is better that we should have policies which unjustly benefit an ever increasing number of under achievers (whether they yet constitute a majority is irrelevant), all the while infringing upon the rights of the successful which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

I don't care about fair. Life is not fair. I want policies which are just.


Anita,

I expect more out of you than that liberal piece of claptrap to which you linked. If the current tax cut benefits the wealthiest one percent to the tune of $3000 per month, it is because the wealthiest one percent pay federal income taxes at a top rate of almost 40%, while the lower end of taxpayers pay at only a 15% rate.

Which is picking the winners in society, a lopsided tax rate schedule, or a tax cut that makes that tax rate schedule flatter?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 03, 2001.

J: I can't be concerned about meeting your expectations of me. I've told you that I'm a liberal and I warned you that the link was to a liberal article. I accept you for who you are. If you can't accept me for who I am, I guess the relationship [heh] has ended. Expectations have a way of doing that with relationships.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2001.

Anita,

It is more a figure of speech rather than a literal statement. I don't really expect you to be concerned if I approve of your posts or not. : )

That said, do you really agree with that article? I know that you lean to the left, but you are surely smart enough to see that an increasing rate of taxation (from 15% to almost 40%) does a lot more in trying to determine who the winners are than a tax cut that is designed to narrow that enormous gap.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 04, 2001.

The poor do not pay much in Federal Income Taxers to start with. If they bother to file their tax return and actually read the book they will get most of their tax refunded.

-- sillvyia (silly@old.silvia), June 04, 2001.

The only "silly" thing around here is the "penalize success" rhetoric. LOL. I guess if you say it enough times, you start to believe it.

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 04, 2001.

Yes, it's so silly to actually believe that Gates deserves all his billions! To think he should keep the money that he earned is just ridiculous!

I most certainly agree that anyone making over $1M a year should be taxed at 100% for anything over that million dollar mark, just as Little Nipper stated.

LOL, Do you guys listen to yourselves?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 04, 2001.

J: I presented the article more to discuss fiscal conservatism than to concentrate on the author's opinion on the tax cut. We'll see soon enough whether there was really money for the tax cuts laying around or whether we'll receive a tax increase or quadruple the debt. Here in Texas, we presumably received tax cuts in 1997 and 1999. Nobody *I* know ever saw them, but I've never been able to move beyond the 33% bracket and I don't have any millionaire friends. I certainly don't resent the wealthy. I'm sure they deserve whatever they get.

OTOH, we're left now with a shortage of funds and it's been very hard for the Texas Congress to come up with the money needed to support road repair, etc. There's even talk of instituting a state income tax.

There's something really weird to me in a tax cut that goes in before a budget. I understand that one could say, "Well, if the money is THERE, we'll spend it.", but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to me to allocate money for savings or charitable contributions before first accounting for the mortgage payment and the other bills that MUST be paid, or setting aside money for unforeseen circumstances.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2001.

One more thing, J. The article I presented [although very liberal in nature] also went into how the current administration is interested in MORE intrusion into our lives than the conservatives of the past. Surely you don't see more intrusion as a function of Libertarianism.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2001.

not.s@ying.now,

"Penalize success" and "reward failure" is exactly what the "progressive" (LOL) income tax system, coupled with the Democrat dream, the welfare state, do. Tax people at a higher and higher rate the more successful that they become, and pay able bodied people to sit on their butts and do nothing except watch Jerry Springer.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 04, 2001.

WRONG ANSWER J, lets try again shall we?

One more thing, J. The article I presented [although very liberal in nature] also went into how the current administration is interested in MORE intrusion into our lives than the conservatives of the past. Surely you don't see more intrusion as a function of Libertarianism.

-- (dingbats@surfaceyet.again), June 04, 2001.

Anita,

You have it all backwards. Fiscal conservatism is not raising tax rates until there is enough coming in to pay for every misguided spending program. Fiscal conservatism is having a tax rate that is adequate to pay for the necessary level of government spending. There is plenty of tax revenue; what there needs to be less of is spending. As much as I applaud your good intentions, it is not the responsibility of the government to feed, clothe, house, provide healthcare for, and otherwise take care of the people. All of that is the responsibility of the individual.

As far as a tax cut before a budget, I can't think of a better way to curb spending than to decrease the size of the revenue stream before you meet to discuss how to spend said revenue stream.

As far as your article goes, Anita, it was nothing more than an unfounded liberal opinion piece. If I baselessly say that the Clinton administration routinely sacrificed infants to Satan right in the Oval Office, and then said, "Surely you don't see infant sacrifice to Satan as a function of progressive policy", how would you respond to me?



anonymous coward,

How would you know what answer is right or wrong? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 04, 2001.

"There's something really weird to me in a tax cut that goes in before a budget. I understand that one could say, "Well, if the money is THERE, we'll spend it.", but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to me to allocate money for savings or charitable contributions before first accounting for the mortgage payment and the other bills that MUST be paid, or setting aside money for unforeseen circumstances."

Anita, you've just pointed out the huge fundamental disconnect between our government (BOTH parties) and reality. The "budget" for this year and the "surplus" from which the tax cuts are to come seem to be in no way related. And the "surplus" is discussed as money we have in our hands right now, instead of what it is - a projection over the next decade assuming steady economic growth.

What happens if the economy doesn't grow? Were those growth projections born of the now fading tech boom? Does anyone remember anymore?

Nobody in Washington seems to care. Those trillions of "surplus" dollars are as real to them as the ten spot in my pocket. Given that, which scheme seems more risky: the one where we spend the imaginary money on more well-intentioned social programs, or the one where we give the imaginary money back to those who the people who might be earning it? Both are risky, certainly, but I know which one sounds riskier to me.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 04, 2001.