"Tax cuts are very rarely good for an economy" The Economics department must have done a 180 since I was at LSU.
Can you back any of this up? or is this like your Taliban wing of the Republican Party stuff. Were any of these 1/2 already getting Earned Income credits? Child credits (which cannot be taken by people earning over a certain amount)? Whose money is it in the first place? How much more in taxes do you think someone who earns $500,000 pays than someone who earns $15,000?
Since I was already there getting Taxcut I did some very quick estimates on 2003 taxes and savings due to 2003 tax changes on various incomes and status. Using Taxcut's online 2003 estimater $15000 Single, no children, standard deductions only $730 in taxes ($50 2003 tax change savings) 6.41% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 4.87% of gross income in taxes $15000 head of household, 1 child, standard deductions only -$2715 in taxes/refunds ($40 tax change savings) 1.49% tax savings from 2003 tax changes -18.1% of gross income in taxes $25000 single no children, standard deductions $2230 in taxes ($50 tax change savings) 2.19% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 8.92% of gross income in taxes $25000 single, 1 child, standard deductions $106 in taxes ($450 2003 tax change savings) 80.94 % tax savings from 2003 tax changes .424% of gross income in taxes $25000 head of household, 1 child, standard deductions -$382 in tax/refunds ($400 2003 tax change savings) 2222.22% tax savings from 2003 tax changes -1.53% of gross income in taxes $50000 married, 2 children, standard deductions $1545 total taxes ($1133 2003 tax change savings) 42.30% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 3.09% of gross income in taxes $80000 married, 2 children, standard deductions $6195 ($2471 2003 tax change savings) 28.51% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 7.74% of gross income in taxes $80000 married, 2 children, $16000 in itemized deductions $5070 ($1422 tax change savings) 21.90% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 6.34% of gross income in taxes $500,000 married, 2 children, standard deductions $146882 in taxes ($13351 2003 tax change savings) 8.33% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 29.38% of gross income in taxes $500,000 married, 2 children, $80,000 itemized deductions $125992 in taxes ($10604 2003 tax change savings) 8.42% tax savings from 2003 tax changes 25.2% of gross income in taxes
Taxes should be just enough to pay for government expenditures. No more, no less. It made no sense to raise taxes when we had a surplus and it makes no sense to cut them when we are in a record deficit. If I spend more money than I take in, I am being irresponsible. Why doesn't it work that way with the government? If we keep cutting taxes while creating new programs, engaging in expensive wars, and dreaming of Mars missions, the country is going to go broke. The responsible way to cut taxes is to quit spending so much freakin' money.
I wish my taxes were as low as Tax Cut says. Of course, you're leaving out payroll taxes, which are a far lower percentage for people making $500K than for people making $50K. And there's also state taxes for those of us living in Louisiana (thank you Governor Foster.)
Why would a low dollar bring in foreign investment? I've never heard anyone make that argument. A dropping dollar means that if you invest $1 = 1 euro today in the US that tomorrow that $1 might be worth 0.99 euros. What a dropping dollar does do, however, is bolster the income of companies who do business in other currencies. When they convert their foreign currencies back into dollars, they are getting more dollars. A bunch of companies are showing improved bottom lines based mostly on this effect. As far as taxes are concerned, I think the income tax is fundamentally immoral and that money in the hands of bureaucrats is a bad idea. I don't think 'the middle class' should pay income taxes; I don't think anyone should. I'm a BIG fan of the national sales tax idea. (see Fairtax.org) In my mind, anything that gives government the first claim on private property from people who have legally obtained it is bad, and anything that reduces government income is good for the country, ESPECIALLY at the federal level. If money is going to be taxed and spent, it ought to be by local governments who are actually accountable to an electorate instead of somebody who represents millions of people. And by the way, tax cuts have been demonstrated to work. The last 3 expansions have been spurred by tax cuts (1982-1990 - Reagan cuts, 1994-2000 - Capitol gains cuts, 2002-present - Bush cuts). With regard to red55's last comments, economically speaking, the budget should be balanced over a whole business cycle. During economic downturns, deficit spending is ok, but it should me made up for in the good years and the debt incurred should be paid down then.
I guess Foster is the one who started the state income tax. So now it is the payroll taxes that are the issue, but did Bush cut the payroll taxes or raise the payroll taxes?
