The Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

[chrmjenkins]

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

Newly revised estimates from Citizens for Tax Justice show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost
$2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010). Preliminary estimates from the
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats’ health care reform legislation
is projected to cost $1 trillion over the decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019).

It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide
us with two and a half times the benefits of health care
reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally
phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will
go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.

[macfan881]

weres Full of win and the other guys when you need them :D

[Zombie Acorn]

You can't look backwards for tax revenues, it never works out the way that government plans.

Besides the current health care proposal does very little to help solve the problem we are facing, unless the problem is assumed to be that insurance execs don't have enough money in their pockets already/politicians need more political funds for 2010/12.

Also the decade proposal is misleading as benefits don't start until well into the decade.

[bobber205]

weres Full of win and the other guys when you need them :D

Scared. No way they can defend this but just say "But it stimulated the economy moar! Big government bad!" :rolleyes:

[bobber205]

You can't look backwards for tax revenues, it never works out the way that government plans.

Besides the current health care proposal does very little to help solve the problem we are facing, unless the problem is assumed to be that insurance execs don't have enough money in their pockets already.
I assume you can't defend the fact they cut taxes but didn't nothing to make up the difference.

[Zombie Acorn]

I assume you can't defend the fact they cut taxes but didn't nothing to make up the difference.

Tax cuts should come with spending cuts. You won't find an argument from me on that point.

[Badandy]

Scared. No way they can defend this but just say "But it stimulated the economy moar! Big government bad!" :rolleyes:

We aren't scared, it's just beating a dead horse. I don't view the government taking less of a share from people's paychecks as "costing" the government anything in terms of it having a negative connotation.

And of course most of the benefits of the tax cuts went to the richest Americans: the poor hardly pay any income tax and receive tax money while the rich are progressively taxed. The Bush tax cuts reduced how progressively they are taxed, that's it.

[hulugu]

We aren't scared, it's just beating a dead horse. I don't view the government taking less of a share from people's paychecks as "costing" the government anything in terms of it having a negative connotation.

"Costing" is probably the wrong word, but in an era in which thousand appear to have discovered that the government runs a deficit, it's a good comparison. The US government went from surplus to deficit and this trend started with the Bush tax cuts—although two wars, a recession, etc. furthered this effect.

The question really should be, were the tax cuts effective? And will the health care proposals be effective?

And of course most of the benefits of the tax cuts went to the richest Americans: the poor hardly pay any income tax and receive tax money while the rich are progressively taxed. The Bush tax cuts reduced how progressively they are taxed, that's it.

And, that should help us understand whether or not these tax cuts were effective in supporting economic growth. If the answer is no, then maybe similar tax cuts should be abandoned for other solutions.

Simply put, can we learn from this?

[bobber205]

Tax cuts should come with spending cuts. You won't find an argument from me on that point.

And they did not have any cuts as far as I am aware. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The hypocrisy with Republicans and "less government" is hilarious. They do nothing but grow it while in power. Their base doesn't complain. But BOOM! As soon as a Democrat gets in there and attempts to clean up after them now they're all for small government and less spending. :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

And they did not have any cuts as far as I am aware. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The hypocrisy with Republicans and "less government" is hilarious. They do nothing but grow it while in power. Their base doesn't complain. But BOOM! As soon as a Democrat gets in there and attempts to clean up after them now they're all for small government and less spending. :rolleyes:

No one rallied harder against Bush's bank bailout plan then the republican base.

[bobber205]

No one rallied harder against Bush's bank bailout plan then the republican base.

That may be true but 1) I doubt it would have happened if it was during a reelection year or at anytime not during his last year. And 2) It was badly needed. Companies even like General Electric would have went bankrupt if the bailout hadn't happened. It would have been extremely bad. I wish Bush had put more restrictions in place and more conditions on what they had to use the money for. Why that didn't happen (with regards to Geithner) still troubles me as it does probably you too.

[IntheNet]

The Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

Perhaps you would be good enough to show us how the Bush tax cuts cost Americans anything? The article did not dwell on that point... The Bush tax cuts indeed addressed and relieved the recession of 2000/2001 and prompted a drop in unemployment to its 8% average in 2002 onward... To refresh, tax cuts reduce the amount of money Americans pay to the IRS to fund government. So the "cost" of a tax cut is actually a net benefit to taxpayers! Indeed, if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, economists project that specifically, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits would be, beginning, in 2011:

"For example, (1) Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average; (2) Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation; (3) Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and (4) After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation."
Source: The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm)

[Zombie Acorn]

That may be true but 1) I doubt it would have happened if it was during a reelection year or at anytime not during his last year. And 2) It was badly needed. Companies even like General Electric would have went bankrupt if the bailout hadn't happened. It would have been extremely bad. I wish Bush had put more restrictions in place and more conditions on what they had to use the money for. Why that didn't happen (with regards to Geithner) still troubles me as it does probably you too.

There is no doubt that the banks had a gun to our head, the problem is that we gave them injections with no strings attached, they become BIGGER by buying out other banks with OUR money. We should have had the Glass-Steagall act reintroduced and further had these banks cut down to size.

In essence we bought the gun from them and then gave them a bigger one for next time.

[bobber205]

There is no doubt that the banks had a gun to our head, the problem is that we gave them injections with no strings attached, they become BIGGER by buying out other banks with OUR money. We should have had the Glass-Steagall act reintroduced and further had these banks cut down to size.

In essence we bought the gun from them and then gave them a bigger one for next time.

I can't see anything to disagree with her. It worried me greatly why Obama let this happen. :( I know he's a good guy in general but why he did this is beyond me.

[chrmjenkins]

Perhaps you would be good enough to show us how the Bush tax cuts cost Americans anything? The article did not dwell on that point... The Bush tax cuts indeed addressed and relieved the recession of 2000/2001 and prompted a drop in unemployment to its 8% average in 2002 onward... To refresh, tax cuts reduce the amount of money Americans pay to the IRS to fund government. So the "cost" of a tax cut is actually a net benefit to taxpayers!

Prior to Bush coming into office, the US was running a surplus and the economy was doing well. There was nothing apparent that warranted these tax cuts. Since no budget cuts were made to accommodate the tax cuts, the net effect was as if we were spending money anyway.


Indeed, if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, economists project that specifically, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits would be, beginning, in 2011:

"For example, (1) Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average; (2) Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation; (3) Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and (4) After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation."
Source: The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm)

Your article is from 2006, which means, among other things, it preates the recession that began last year and makes it rather irrelevant to the current economic condition.

[splitpea]

I can't see anything to disagree with her. It worried me greatly why Obama let this happen. :( I know he's a good guy in general but why he did this is beyond me.

Most of this happened before Obama took office; plus, the president doesn't have the power to block a corporate merger. Look to the congresscritters who wrote the original stimulus bill, which was passed while Bush was in office, and contained no stipulations regarding this; and the people at the treasury and SEC who didn't blink an eye.

And some would argue that the mergers prevented some of the banks from failing and thereby prevented the economy from failing. I can't comment on the validity of that argument, but I agree that it's a shame that the fallout has been the creation of more banks which are even more "too big to fail" -- without any provision for splitting them back up... or for any sort of corporate darwinisn to eliminate shoddily-managed corporations and dissolve their leadership altogether.

[VenusianSky]

I don't get the point. Why do people compare issues of this administration with how matters were handled by a previous administration? Do what is best for the present time. That is why we have elections every four years. Mistakes from the past don't necessarily justify a decision in the present.

[sysiphus]

I don't get the point. Why do people compare issues of this administration with how matters were handled by a previous administration? Do what is best for the present time. That is why we have elections every four years. Mistakes from the past don't necessarily justify a decision in the present.

Thank you. I'm getting really sick of this thought process to excuse for current mistakes/problems.

[Shivetya]

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

and worth every penny. Those who make more money generally have more at the end. Most people never advance in class simply because they are too stupid to be wealthier.

Bush's fault was not reigning in the Republican majority from spending. The tax cuts did generate growth but government spending increased beyond reason. Then we have the dope up there now who wants to compound it with higher taxes and even higher spending.

Vote D or R and we all lose.

If you tax it then it cannot be used to hire someone. Dividing wealth does not increase it.

[Eraserhead]

Most people never advance in class simply because they are too stupid to be wealthier.

What about the people who inherit their wealth?

[Iscariot]

Arguing that the Bush tax cuts would have had significant impact on lessening the absurd cost of the health care "proposal" is, for wont of another term, flat out stupid. Do you suppose that without that tax cut the Bush administration would have simply sat on the money and allowed it to accrue to be used for future administrations? I am certainly not defending the Bush administration's wanton disregard for the lower class and their tax cuts for the rich scheme, but it wouldn't have paid for a Democratic healthcare proposal.

[chrmjenkins]

Arguing that the Bush tax cuts would have had significant impact on lessening the absurd cost of the health care "proposal" is, for wont of another term, flat out stupid. Do you suppose that without that tax cut the Bush administration would have simply sat on the money and allowed it to accrue to be used for future administrations? I am certainly not defending the Bush administration's wanton disregard for the lower class and their tax cuts for the rich scheme, but it wouldn't have paid for a Democratic healthcare proposal.

I don't think that's the intent of the article. I think that the idea is to point out the absurdity of objecting something that caters to human rights on the grounds of cost when we gave tax cuts to the rich, who didn't need them, at a valuation of 2.5 times the cost of the health care proposal.

[IntheNet]

I don't think that's the intent of the article. I think that the idea is to point out the absurdity of objecting something that caters to human rights on the grounds of cost when we gave tax cuts to the rich, who didn't need them, at a valuation of 2.5 times the cost of the health care proposal.

I don't consider myself rich at all but I received tax cuts under the Bush Administration; most of my neighbors did too and none of us are among the "rich" that Democrats seem to demonize. Matter of fact most Americans received either tax cuts and/or tax rebates sometime during the Bush Administration, that helped keep productivity high and unemployment low (in the 7% range) for the period 2001-2008 and helped overcome the recession of 2000-2001. Want to know who didn't receive tax cuts during this period? Those that didn't pay taxes! Further, one of the reasons that upper strata of wage earners profit from tax cuts is that they often work harder to succeed and pay the lion's share of taxes in this nation, while many in the lower brackets don't pay any at all. Tax cuts also prompt companies to invest in new jobs via investment and expansion (as we saw in 2000-2008). President Reagan also used tax cuts to overcome the Carter economic disaster that regrettably we are seeing resurface today... Lastly, trying to compare the extreme cost of the health care proposal that Democrats are forcing Americans to pay, to the tax revenue that the former administration returned to its rightful owners seems a stretch best undone, in my humble opinion.

If you could explain the attempt at some moral equivalency between returning taxpayer earnings through a tax cut with taking earnings from selected taxpayers to pay others health care bills that might prove interesting.

[bobber205]

My dad was making about 30k a year working 50+ hours a week as a elementary school teacher and we received about 18 dollars in the rebate program. That's it.

We're among the ones that needed the money the most (though we paid, after regular rebates about nothing in taxes) but received nothing.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Can some one give me information about Obama's tax cuts? I remember hearing about them last May, but nothing since.

I would have thought that it would be used as a major talking point for the administration, but they haven't said anything about it for months. Did the tax cut take effect? Who did they cut taxes for?


I also remember hearing that Reagan's taxes were higher than Obama's, although I'm not sure how the current economic climate would affect how they impact the economy.

[abijnk]

Want to know who didn't receive tax cuts during this period? Those that didn't pay taxes!

I'm curious, I hear people say this a lot, but honestly don't know enough about the different tax laws to know.. Anyways, when you say this are you referring to people who received refunds? Or tax dodgers? Who?

[Desertrat]

First off, the tax cuts didn't cost anything. A cost is money you pay out, and the government did not pay out any money.

Next, that money which was foregone income to the government meant more money available in the private sector for investment in the production of useful goods and services. The more money taken for taxes, the less money available to invest and thus create more wealth to tax.

Aesop figured it out centuries ago. The parable of the golden goose. But folks were a lot smarter, back then.

[fivepoint]

First off, the tax cuts didn't cost anything. A cost is money you pay out, and the government did not pay out any money.

Next, that money which was foregone income to the government meant more money available in the private sector for investment in the production of useful goods and services. The more money taken for taxes, the less money available to invest and thus create more wealth to tax.

Aesop figured it out centuries ago. The parable of the golden goose. But folks were a lot smarter, back then.

+1

Liberals have a wacked-out view of what it means for the government to 'lose money'. The very word 'tax cut' is indicative of this. Anymore, governmental costs have annual scheduled increases, and when the increase doesn't happen, it's called a 'cut'.

When the government returns money to people, it's not a 'loss'. It was never the government's money to begin with. It was the individual's money, which the government decided to take and redistribute less of.

[Badandy]

My dad was making about 30k a year working 50+ hours a week as a elementary school teacher and we received about 18 dollars in the rebate program. That's it.

We're among the ones that needed the money the most (though we paid, after regular rebates about nothing in taxes) but received nothing.

Frankly, I think it's unbelievable you're complaining about not receiving money when your family doesn't pay anything to begin with.

[Zombie Acorn]

What about the people who inherit their wealth?

You realize that only 1 in 5 millionaires are that way because they inherited their wealth right?

[bobber205]

Frankly, I think it's unbelievable you're complaining about not getting receiving money when your family doesn't pay anything to begin with.

I am talking more along the lines on how "stimulative" the money could have been if we were going to sacrifice that much money. The poor spend all their money while the rich keep it in the bank.

[Eraserhead]

You realize that only 1 in 5 millionaires are that way because they inherited their wealth right?

Source?

For example (source (https://pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Requester?resource=/wps/wcm/connect/41441e804f4a89d69ea99f267cb633c4/EarnedvsInheritedWealth_Rls.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=41441e804f4a89d69ea99f267cb633c4)):

PNC’s fourth annual Wealth and Values Survey revealed that 69 percent of Americans with $500,000 or more in investable assets accumulated most of their fortune by earning it through work, business ownership or investments. This compares to the 6 percent who attained their wealth primarily through inheritance. The remaining 25 percent gained their wealth through a combination of inheritance and earnings.

You could be in the 69% if you either lie about your inherited wealth, or if your investments/businesses that used that money could have been successful.

[Zombie Acorn]

Source?


I read it in a text recently while looking for charts, Principles of Microeconomics, Mankiw, fifth edition, Chapter 20: Poverty and Income Inequality. I don't have the book on hand so I can't tell where it was officially sourced from.

[IntheNet]

I'm curious, I hear people say this a lot, but honestly don't know enough about the different tax laws to know.. Anyways, when you say this are you referring to people who received refunds? Or tax dodgers? Who?

Very good question and I am glad you asked it.

If you refer to an interesting document called the "DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LIABILITIES BY INCOME CLASS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000"* (http://www.jct.gov/x-45-00.pdf), prepared by the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION, (regrets on not finding a more current version - I am sure that an up-to-date version exists) you will see the Federal tax liabilities of individuals by income class as determined by tax rate as set by the IRS. What is clear from the tables provided in this document is that the majority of the REVENUE PAID AS TAXES AND COLLECTED by the IRS in this nation is paid by highest 10% of the wage earners (50.1%), while the FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY for the lowest wage earners, in terms of tax paid and collected, is near zero (0.4%). What this means is clear; our tax system, determined by rate, heavily penalizes those at the top earning brackets and favors those at the bottom of the wage earning bracket, even though the IRS clearly maintains that it taxes everyone equally. Therefore statements by hard working Americans about being unfairly taxed simply because they work harder, are largely true. Said another way, our tax structure penalizes hard working Americans who pay taxes and unfairly rewards those that choose not to work and, in turn, pay no tax, even though both groups largely use government services equally.

* Joint Committee on Taxation, Distribution of Certain Federal Tax Liabilities by Income Class for Calendar Year 2000 (JCX-45-00), April 11, 2000.

[Eraserhead]

I read it in a text recently while looking for charts, Principles of Microeconomics, Mankiw, fifth edition, Chapter 20: Poverty and Income Inequality. I don't have the book on hand so I can't tell where it was officially sourced from.

Fair enough. I think my point would be better expressed as "I doubt people would tell the truth about that if they were surveyed" :). Also people who've made a successful multi-million dollar business aren't going to mention the $100k (or whatever) they inherited which let them get it off the ground.

[abijnk]

Very good question and I am glad you asked it.

If you refer to an interesting document called the "DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LIABILITIES BY INCOME CLASS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000"* (http://www.jct.gov/x-45-00.pdf), prepared by the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION, (regrets on not finding a more current version - I am sure that an up-to-date version exists) you will see the Federal tax liabilities of individuals by income class as determined by tax rate as set by the IRS. What is clear from the tables provided in this document is that the majority of the REVENUE PAID AS TAXES AND COLLECTED by the IRS in this nation is paid by highest 10% of the wage earners (50.1%), while the FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY for the lowest wage earners, in terms of tax paid and collected, is near zero (0.4%). What this means is clear; our tax system, determined by rate, heavily penalizes those at the top earning brackets and favors those at the bottom of the wage earning bracket, even though the IRS clearly maintains that it taxes everyone equally. Therefore statements by hard working Americans about being unfairly taxed simply because they work harder, are largely true. Said another way, our tax structure penalizes hard working Americans who pay taxes and unfairly rewards those that choose not to work and, in turn, pay no tax, even though both groups largely use government services equally.

* Joint Committee on Taxation, Distribution of Certain Federal Tax Liabilities by Income Class for Calendar Year 2000 (JCX-45-00), April 11, 2000.

Interesting. I wish I had been one of the people with a negative liability when I was making less than 20k, but alas, we can't all be so fortunate.

I guess the difference between you and I here is that I see absolutely no problem with taxing higher wage earners more. In fact, now that I am making more money than I ever thought I would, I am happy to pay more in taxes. Why? Because I recognize that I wouldn't be where I am without tax money. Federal loans got me through college and my degree got me the job I have that pays so well.

The way I see it, by paying more in taxes I am helping out others who grew up like me. Sure, I have less disposable income at the end of the day, but you know what? I still have food on my table and a roof over my head, which is more than a lot of Americans do. I also still have enough left over that I have a new car, a flat screen tv, granite counter tops, hardwood floors, a mac, a smartphone, camera equipment, a kindle, etc. etc. Many things that are merely luxuries and not essential to my well being.

Now, if I brought home more of my income I would surely be able to spend more of it, thus contributing much more directly to the economy. However, I don't think its right for a society to operate that way. I think it is perfectly acceptable to expect those more fortunate to help out those less fortunate, and one of the ways to accomplish this is through tax payer funded social programs. Can I guarantee that the money I give to the government is going to be spent in exactly the way I think it should? No, but that's not a reason not to rail against it.

The idea of trickle down economics is really a mystery to me. You hear cliches like "All ships rise with the tide," but no one seems to think about the ships that are already under water. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" But where do you get the boots?

*shrug*

If that labels me as a Flaming Librool™ then I'm happy to take the title.

[IntheNet]

I guess the difference between you and I here is that I see absolutely no problem with taxing higher wage earners more. In fact, now that I am making more money than I ever thought I would, I am happy to pay more in taxes. Why? Because I recognize that I wouldn't be where I am without tax money. Federal loans got me through college and my degree got me the job I have that pays so well.

A clarification if I might... If my post implied that I disagreed with the graduated tax rate then perhaps I should have been more clear. I and most middle income wage earners, and the top wage earners, don't mind paying our fair share of the tax. What has happened, however, is that far too much of the burden is being heaped upward, discriminately so, leaving many at the bottom paying little to no taxes while the middle and upper wage earners pay far too much. That is part of what prompted the Tea Party movement. More important, however, as you'll discover, is the harder you work the more the government takes away in taxes, leading to a system - at present - that de-emphasizes upward mobility. That's not America!

If that labels me as a Flaming Librool™ then I'm happy to take the title.

If you took exception to the term you have my apologies; and perhaps I do need to re-evaluate pejoratives employed in prose. Nevertheless, the situation that America finds itself in, economically with left wing "liberals" bankrupting the nation, cries out for a fervent response, which is also one of the benchmarks fueling the Tea Party movement.

[rhsgolfer33]

I guess the difference between you and I here is that I see absolutely no problem with taxing higher wage earners more. In fact, now that I am making more money than I ever thought I would, I am happy to pay more in taxes. Why? Because I recognize that I wouldn't be where I am without tax money. Federal loans got me through college and my degree got me the job I have that pays so well.

I don't think many people would disagree that higher incomes should pay more in taxes. However, why should higher incomes pay a higher percentage in income tax than anyone else? Not to mention the Alternative Minimum Tax. We're punishing a lot of people who have sought extended education, taken risks, or been innovative enough to create something that provides a large income.

If everyone were taxed at 25% people making a $1,000,000 per year would pay $250,000 in taxes while people making only $40,000 would pay $10,000. I understand $10,000 is a lot for someone making $40,000, but if you add in a credit (I would suggest that it should probably be nonrefundable) that is phased out as income increases, we could cut back lower incomes tax liability while still making sure higher incomes pay a proper amount of tax.

This would also simplify the tax code, something that is drastically needed.

[abijnk]

If you took exception to the term you have my apologies; and perhaps I do need to re-evaluate pejoratives employed in prose. Nevertheless, the situation that America finds itself in, economically with left wing "liberals" bankrupting the nation, cries out for a fervent response, which is also one of the benchmarks fueling the Tea Party movement.

I wasn't aiming that line at you specifically.


This would also simplify the tax code, something that is drastically needed.

Would it? I'm not saying the current tax system is perfect, I think everyone knows it needs a major overhaul, but I've not seen any ideas that look fair to me and yet remain somewhat simple. I think it's the nature of the beast.

EDIT: I should also probably throw in, if it wasn't apparent from my first question in #26, that I am way beyond my scope with tax stuff. So if you want to write me off as an ignoramus here I wouldn't blame you. :o

[rhsgolfer33]

Would it? I'm not saying the current tax system is perfect, I think everyone knows it needs a major overhaul, but I've not seen any ideas that look fair to me and yet remain somewhat simple. I think it's the nature of the beast.

Of course it would. The current tax code has numerous credits, provisions for Alternative Minimum Tax calculations, provisions for taxing different kinds of property transactions (ie capital gains, like-kind exchanges, etc.), provisions for hundreds of deductions (ie standard deduction, deduction for mortgage interest, limitations on these deductions, charitable contributions), depreciation rules, depreciation recapture provisions, exemption phaseouts for high income earners, depedent deductions and rules, etc.

Saying everyone pays 25% (or whatever, I just picked that number), gets a credit of $X that phasesout at X rate if you have income over $X, and can take $X deduction per dependent would be amazingly simple in comparison to what we have now. Of course it wouldn't take long for subsequent congresses to screw with the simpleness.

Coincidentally, I just took an Individual Income Tax final this morning. It isn't really in my interest for the tax code to get simpler, so I don't care if this ever happens, but it certainly would be cheaper for the government and easier for your average person to figure out. :)

[abijnk]

Coincidentally, I just took an Individual Income Tax final this morning. :)

Yeah, see, so you should probably just go with my edit. ;)

[rhsgolfer33]

Yeah, see, so you should probably just go with my edit. ;)

Haha, I wouldn't write you off as an ignoramus. You're certainly articulate and capable of expressing your view, so I'm sure you'd have no problem learning about taxes. Not that most people would actually want to spend their time doing that, lol. All you really have to remember when dealing with the Tax Code is that if it seems simple, turn the page and you'll probably find some other rule or exception that makes it infinitely more difficult. Even trying to figure out something that should be simple, like figuring out if someone is a dependent, can end up being difficult.

[scottness]

I don't think many people would disagree that higher incomes should pay more in taxes. However, why should higher incomes pay a higher percentage in income tax than anyone else? Not to mention the Alternative Minimum Tax. We're punishing a lot of people who have sought extended education, taken risks, or been innovative enough to create something that provides a large income.


Agreed. Taxing those that create jobs with a higher percentage kills incentives and hurts our country.

[OutThere]

I don't get the point. Why do people compare issues of this administration with how matters were handled by a previous administration? Do what is best for the present time. That is why we have elections every four years. Mistakes from the past don't necessarily justify a decision in the present.

On the contrary, American and world history is a rich source of successes and failures that we could do very well to look back on. Do you confront every problem anew, or do you think back on how you solved it the last time?



Tax cuts are a very difficult road to go down: taxes are set at a certain point for some time, the government has X amount of revenue and provides X amount of services. Suddenly a tax cut comes along and people are still used to getting X amount of services but the government no longer has nearly the same amount of revenue. Raising taxes is politically unappealing, so nobody does. We spend the money fighting foreign wars. American bridges collapse, roads get potholes, schools fall behind, people complain. The ASCE expects a need for $2.2 trillion over 5 years in infrastructure maintenance. But it's OK because the money is in the hands of the people! :rolleyes:

The schools that taught so many millions of us to read and write, the roads we drive on every day, the electricity powering our computers, the soldiers who have fought to protect us, the fire departments that save us from disaster, the police who protect us, the regulators who keep private industry from destroying our air and water, the people who work every day to make sure our cars are safe, the embassies and support networks for Americans abroad, the sewage plants that process our sh**, the landfills that we fill with our waste....paid with taxes. People expect these but bitch about paying for them. Everyone benefits when there is a certain standard of living. My family is taxed in the highest bracket, fwiw.

[Counterfit]

More important, however, as you'll discover, is the harder you work the more the government takes away in taxes, leading to a system - at present - that de-emphasizes upward mobility.

That's an over simplification. If you make money that puts you into a higher tax rate, you only pay that rate on what you earned over the minimum for that bracket, not your entire income. You still have a net gain. Not trying to earn more money in order to pay less in taxes only hurts the person in question.

[bobber205]

That's an over simplification. If you make money that puts you into a higher tax rate, you only pay that rate on what you earned over the minimum for that bracket, not your entire income. You still have a net gain. Not trying to earn more money in order to pay less in taxes only hurts the person in question.

I just found out this fact a couple years ago so it's probably no surprise that InTheNet doesn't know this.

[zap2]

Frankly, I think it's unbelievable you're complaining about not receiving money when your family doesn't pay anything to begin with.

I don't...school teachers make far too little money. That job is massively important for our(being the world's) future.

That's an over simplification. If you make money that puts you into a higher tax rate, you only pay that rate on what you earned over the minimum for that bracket, not your entire income. You still have a net gain. Not trying to earn more money in order to pay less in taxes only hurts the person in question.

Ya, I had to look that up at one point because the way many people say it suggest it, once you hit a certain number, you get taxed higher on all the income, and end up losing money.

Its just not true(my a conservative friend was quite shocked to learn this info, as was I..he's whole argument against taxing was based on the misinformation)
The story doesn't mean much on its own, but the point is this fact is not always made as clear as it should be.

[Badandy]

Its just not true(my a conservative friend was quite shocked to learn this info, as was I..he's whole argument against taxing was based on the misinformation)
The story doesn't mean much on its own, but the point is this fact is not always made as clear as it should be.

Your conservative friend must not be paying taxes if he didn't know that. The point is if you hope/expect a certain number of hours to bring you a certain disposable income, being taxed progressively throws that ratio out of whack and people then think more about if the marginal benefit of extra work is worth it.

[zap2]

Your conservative friend must not be paying taxes if he didn't know that. The point is if you hope/expect a certain number of hours to bring you a certain disposable income, being taxed progressively throws that ratio out of whack and people then think more about if the marginal benefit of extra work is worth it.

He was a student at the time, so he was dependent on his parents...

[Eraserhead]

I don't...school teachers make far too little money. That job is massively important for our(being the world's) future.

I don't know how much teachers earn in the US exactly, but in the UK someone I know who's a teacher earns about average for her friends which are graduates. They start on £20000 and earn £28000 after 5 years, which is fairly reasonable.

[bobber205]

I don't know how much teachers earn in the US exactly, but in the UK someone I know who's a teacher earns about average for her friends which are graduates. They start on £20000 and earn £28000 after 5 years, which is fairly reasonable.

Some teachers earn about 32k starting out in the US.

[hulugu]

First off, the tax cuts didn't cost anything. A cost is money you pay out, and the government did not pay out any money.

Next, that money which was foregone income to the government meant more money available in the private sector for investment in the production of useful goods and services. The more money taken for taxes, the less money available to invest and thus create more wealth to tax.

Aesop figured it out centuries ago. The parable of the golden goose. But folks were a lot smarter, back then.

Cost is certainly the wrong word, but again the comparison is useful to understand the size of the health care proposal in relationship to other budgetary items.

Secondly, if the CBO numbers are correct, the proposal could free up money spent on health-care for other sectors of the economy. Less than was estimated at first, but again, the health care proposal could be, like the interstate highway system, a large-scale national investment that actually helps our long-term economic output.

I'm not arguing that the current proposal will do this, only that you cannot automatically discount such a proposal.


+1

Liberals have a wacked-out view of what it means for the government to 'lose money'. The very word 'tax cut' is indicative of this. Anymore, governmental costs have annual scheduled increases, and when the increase doesn't happen, it's called a 'cut'.

When the government returns money to people, it's not a 'loss'. It was never the government's money to begin with. It was the individual's money, which the government decided to take and redistribute less of.

Cost is incorrect, but "loss" does make sense. Think of it this way, you have an income that has remained at $32,000 for two years. The next year you decide to take in only $28,000. What do you call the $4,000 negative shift in income?

[dukebound85]

Some teachers earn about 32k starting out in the US.

wait, but didnt you say your dad only made 30k as a teacher? I am assuming he's been a teacher for a while too....your other posts arent being consistent now

My dad was making about 30k a year working 50+ hours a week as a elementary school teacher and we received about 18 dollars in the rebate program. That's it.

We're among the ones that needed the money the most (though we paid, after regular rebates about nothing in taxes) but received nothing.

Frankly, I think it's unbelievable you're complaining about not receiving money when your family doesn't pay anything to begin with.

I agree. To get money back, you need to have paid it in. At 30k a year, you don't pay much in taxes

[Eraserhead]

Some teachers earn about 32k starting out in the US.

The UK figure I've given is the minimum, you earn more than £20k to start with in London and the rest of the South East (though that probably doesn't cover the insane housing costs for this part of the world).

[fivepoint]

Cost is incorrect, but "loss" does make sense. Think of it this way, you have an income that has remained at $32,000 for two years. The next year you decide to take in only $28,000. What do you call the $4,000 negative shift in income?

That's a horrendous analogy. It's much more like a thief. A thief who creates no prosperity himself, but who steals form productive members of society. A thief who promises that every $ they steal, a certain percentage of that $ will go to the poor and other social programs.

Then when the people he steals from get better protection, he is able to only steal about 80% of what he used to be able to steal. I wouldn't report that as a 20% decrease in revenue for the thief. I'd report that as a 20% decrease in thievery. I'd report that as productive members of society getting more of their hard-earned money to keep for themselves.

It's really sad to see people in this thread equating tax-cuts (i.e. money being returned to it's original owner) being equated with massive deficit spending on entitlement programs. It's sad, and hilarious all at the same time... although increasingly less funny.

BTW, if you think we're going to add millions of new people to health insurance, and save money doing it... I've been giving you far too much credit in the past. Besides a simple misunderstanding of the facts, you also seem to misunderstand history... do a bit of research on the cost of medicare and Social Security, specifically the actual costs and how they compare to the forecasted costs when the program started.

Do that, and then get back to me. If you don't want to go to the trouble, I'll give you the short version: This is going to cost us BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars more in the first 10 years than those trying to sell us the bill say it will.

[freeny]

The problem i have with "trickle down economics" is that i cant remember it ever working. Everytime it is used we have ended up in a recession. Its almost as if its use is an excuse for the rich to be richer, aka "greed".

Please point out occasions where it has been successfull...

As far as the "tax and spend" moniker the reps have labled the dems, i find this a bit confusing when the reps follow the "spend and no tax" rule which of course doesnt work either...

[NT1440]

That's a horrendous analogy. It's much more like a thief. .

And this is precisely where I decided fivepoint is no longer capable of being reasoned with.

You realize a country's government costs money to run right? I take it you're for anarchy instead?

[rhsgolfer33]

Some teachers earn about 32k starting out in the US.

I don't really feel sorry for teachers. Now days, when deciding to become a teacher it is fairly common knowledge that they aren't paid a lot. If you still make the decision to become a teacher you should accept the pay that comes along with that decision. Plus, you know, the whole summer vacation thing isn't too bad of a deal. $32,000 / 9 months of work = $3,556

$3,556 per month worked isn't a bad starting salary; if you were to work a standard 12 month job at that rate you'd be starting out at $42,667. Don't forget the benefits either, which are generally pretty good (at least here in California). I know numerous teachers who have superior benefits, retirement plans, etc. to what many large companies offer.

[Macky-Mac]

First off, the tax cuts didn't cost anything. A cost is money you pay out, and the government did not pay out any money.....

The usual spin from the republicants! Dictionaries give "cause the loss of" as one of the meanings of the word "cost", so of course it was a "cost". Anybody who's tried balancing a budget knows it's going to "cost" you if you give up income.....plus the loss of that income meant that more money had to be borrowed resulting in even more "cost" to pay interest on the borrowed money.

The government "didn't pay out any money"? Total nonsense! They sent out checks and more checks and more checks to cover the cost of this giveaway program

[Badandy]

Dictionaries give "cause the loss of" as one of the meanings of the word "cost", so of course it was a "cost". Anybody who's tried balancing a budget knows it's going to "cost" you if you give up income.....plus the loss of that income meant that more money had to be borrowed resulting in even more "cost" to pay interest on the borrowed money.

Look, we're taking exception to using the word "cost" to describe the government taking less of the money someone earned. It's not technically wrong, it just sends the wrong vibe in my mind. The government doesn't deserve so much of our money that we should use the word "cost" to describe what happens when they get less. It should be the other way around; they should have to fight, bargain, and be forced to justify their reasons to even get an extra cent.

[hulugu]

...Look, we're taking exception to using the word "cost" to describe the government taking less of the money someone earned. It's not technically wrong, it just sends the wrong vibe in my mind. The government doesn't deserve so much of our money that we should use the word "cost" to describe what happens when they get less. It should be the other way around; they should have to fight, bargain, and be forced to justify their reasons to even get an extra cent.

This is a reasonable point and I agree with you about justification, but I also know that we can only estimate the costs of any large-scale program (see any DoD program for example).

However, for the sake of comparison to the scale of such a program we can still use this number, just as we might inquire about the cost of a new aircraft carrier against other budgetary priorities.

[Macky-Mac]

....Look, we're taking exception to using the word "cost" to describe the government taking less of the money someone earned. It's not technically wrong, it just sends the wrong vibe in my mind. The government doesn't deserve so much of our money that we should use the word "cost" to describe what happens when they get less. It should be the other way around; they should have to fight, bargain, and be forced to justify their reasons to even get an extra cent.

if you give up some of your revenue but go ahead and spend that money anyway, then you're creating a "cost" to pay the interest on the extra money you borrowed. It's simply a whitewash to pretend otherwise.

All of the "government doesn't deserve..." may make for a feel good moment, but the fact remains that there's more debt and interest to be paid as a result of those tax cuts

[bobber205]

wait, but didnt you say your dad only made 30k as a teacher? I am assuming he's been a teacher for a while too....your other posts arent being consistent now





I agree. To get money back, you need to have paid it in. At 30k a year, you don't pay much in taxes

I was talking about years ago in 2001 when the tax cuts were implemented. And yes that's ABOUT how much he was making. I don't have the exact figure on me atm.

There's not much difference between 30k and 32k, especially with regards to taxes. And besides I said *some* start out at that amount. Others are much lower. When my dad FIRST started teaching in 1997 he made just over 20k.

I don't really feel sorry for teachers. Now days, when deciding to become a teacher it is fairly common knowledge that they aren't paid a lot. If you still make the decision to become a teacher you should accept the pay that comes along with that decision. Plus, you know, the whole summer vacation thing isn't too bad of a deal. $32,000 / 9 months of work = $3,556

$3,556 per month worked isn't a bad starting salary; if you were to work a standard 12 month job at that rate you'd be starting out at $42,667. Don't forget the benefits either, which are generally pretty good (at least here in California). I know numerous teachers who have superior benefits, retirement plans, etc. to what many large companies offer.

And this is why our education system is so bad. This attitude right here.

[dukebound85]

And this is why our education system is so bad. This attitude right here.

But it is true. One knows going in that the pay teachers get is not a great amount. One can't complain when they knew the facts going in:cool:

[hulugu]

But it is true. One knows going in that the pay teachers get is not a great amount. One can't complain when they knew the facts going in:cool:

I disagree, one can complain and attempt to increase their pay if they feel it's below the standard of living or those of their peers in other markets. How else would teacher pay increase if not from pressure from the actual work-force.

[dukebound85]

I disagree, one can complain and attempt to increase their pay if they feel it's below the standard of living or those of their peers in other markets. How else would teacher pay increase if not from pressure from the actual work-force.

How can you disagree?:confused:

When you decide a career choice, you need to factor in the pay. To not do so is being irresponsible

I am not saying one can't argue for higher wages but one needs to be prepared to face current reality when they choose a profession

[bobber205]

How can you disagree?:confused:

When you decide a career choice, you need to factor in the pay. To not do so is being irresponsible

I am not saying one can't argue for higher wages but one needs to be prepared to face current reality when they choose a profession

Let's make this more clear for you.

Let's pay teachers 20k instead of 30k. How many do you think are going to become teachers? Are you ok with class sizes getting even bigger?

Hell, we could make it a volunteer basis with your logic. In many states, full time teacher's kids qualify for free lunch. <_<

[dukebound85]

Let's make this more clear for you.

Let's pay teachers 20k instead of 30k. How many do you think are going to become teachers? Are you ok with class sizes getting even bigger?

Hell, we could make it a volunteer basis with your logic. In many states, full time teacher's kids qualify for free lunch. <_<

ook? what is your point exactly? You realize that it is supply and demand and applies to every profession right?

Regardless, how about we deal with reality. The reality is that professions have a certain salary. If you don't research this before going into that field, then that is your fault, no one elses

You HAVE to take that into consideration when you go into that field and be prepared to live with the pros and cons of said profession. If one doesn't then they are either being foolish or ignorant of the market

Your post, quite frankly, makes no sense as it is unfounded in reality

[bobber205]

ook? what is your point exactly? You realize that it is supply and demand and applies to every profession right?

Regardless, how about we deal with reality. The reality is that professions have a certain salary. If you don't research this before going into that field, then that is your fault, no one elses

You HAVE to take that into consideration when you go into that field and be prepared to live with the pros and cons of said profession. If one doesn't then they are either being foolish or ignorant of the market

Your post, quite frankly, makes no sense as it is unfounded in reality


Supply and Demand: We have a great demand for teachers, let alone GOOD teachers. There's not enough of a supply for either teachers or good teachers.

Yet salaries are not increasing.

Why is this?

[dukebound85]

Supply and Demand: We have a great demand for teachers, let alone GOOD teachers. There's not enough of a supply for either teachers or good teachers.

Yet salaries are not increasing.

Why is this?

Great demand for teachers? that's news to me
http://chicago.metblogs.com/2009/02/04/chicago-has-too-many-teachers/
http://theapple.monster.com/news/articles/9228-too-many-teachers-compete-for-open-positions
http://education.change.org/blog/view/too_many_teachers_not_enough_money_125000_positions_cut

Also, it is relatively easy to become a teacher (as opposed to say a doctor, lawyer, etc) so that leads to more people pursuing it

The same is true for my profession (engineering). Starting salaries are lower due to less open positions and laid off expereinced engineers looking for work as well that would otherwise be taken by new grads

May want to research your claims first;)

It really is supply and demand

[rhsgolfer33]

And this is why our education system is so bad. This attitude right here.

You mean the attitude that you should consider pay when deciding on a career? Many people consider pay when deciding what to do, I certainly did, as did many of my friends, it is simply the smart thing to do. If a career couldn't provide the lifestyle I wanted, there wasn't much point in pursuing that career. I know what I've decided to pursue will pay $45k-$60k, starting plus professional advancement benefits and bonuses, fairly quick advancement, marginal health and retirement benefits, and an earning potential in the top 1% of Americans in 15 years, that information played a role in my decision to pursue the career I have. The salary and benefits teachers receive should play a role in anyone's decision to flow that career path.

For 9-10 months of work teachers are paid decently. Many school districts offer summer school that offers the possibility of a few more months income. The benefits are often fairly good and teachers can earn tenure, something that really doesn't exist outside of academia. I respect teachers and I've had many excellent ones, however, I think they were paid decently for their work when you consider benefits, time off, etc. Teachers benefits add an estimated 32% (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_9/ai_n31467946/) to their salary for their overall compensations. If you add 32% to that $32,000 you come out a little over $42,000 in total compensation; not bad for 9-10 months of work. Many teachers also get defined benefit pensions; pretty difficult to come by in the corporate world. Not to mention the early age teacher retirement plans often offer.

And our education system isn't bad because of the teachers or their pay, it is bad because school districts don't have proper money to spend on equipment and books, and because parents expect the school to cater to their and their child's every whim. The education system is bad because the system doesn't challenge students, we teach to the lowest standard and to the dumbest individuals in the school. Our education system would be much better if we simply failed students more often, instead of passing them with C's and D's, and if we challenge our students more. We also shouldn't pretend that everyone is going to college; school districts should offer programs in things like wielding, automotives, etc., so that we can remove students with no interest in college from the standard curriculum at some point and allow them to learn a skill that will provide a viable job and that the have some interest in.

I'd much rather see money spent on equipment, a more challenging curriculum, and expanded programs with different opportunities for students with no college interest instead of increased pay for teachers.

[pdham]

That's a horrendous analogy. It's much more like a thief. A thief who creates no prosperity himself, but who steals form productive members of society.

You seriously are arguing that the government creates no prosperity?

[IntheNet]

That's a horrendous analogy. It's much more like a thief. A thief who creates no prosperity himself, but who steals form productive members of society. A thief who promises that every $ they steal, a certain percentage of that $ will go to the poor and other social programs.

Excellent point... I've used this analogy myself time and again.

Then when the people he steals from get better protection, he is able to only steal about 80% of what he used to be able to steal. I wouldn't report that as a 20% decrease in revenue for the thief. I'd report that as a 20% decrease in thievery. I'd report that as productive members of society getting more of their hard-earned money to keep for themselves.

Precisely... taxpayers know best where to spend their money; government largess is at the liability of the taxpayer not the other way around!

It's really sad to see people in this thread equating tax-cuts (i.e. money being returned to it's original owner) being equated with massive deficit spending on entitlement programs. It's sad, and hilarious all at the same time... although increasingly less funny.

Excellent point again! My suspicion is that many herein are not in a tax bracket to fully realize the damage of growing entitlement programs on America - I too find it sad that tax cuts are being questioned when the principle of tax cuts are to return money to those that earned it!

This is going to cost us BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars more in the first 10 years than those trying to sell us the bill say it will.

I fear you are right and that economic collapse of the nation will occur in 2010 since our foreign investors are none too happy with BHO's spendthrift on health and other matters; more specifically, in terms of the health care boondoggle, those in America happy with their health plans - which means most Americans - will see their payments escalate tremendously and senior citizens will be denied care and long lines will grow with rationed care... Lastly, those young Americans forced to buy insurance or be penalized/jailed will rebel in mass against that health plan propaganda which they were lied to about...

[hulugu]

When you decide a career choice, you need to factor in the pay. To not do so is being irresponsible

I am not saying one can't argue for higher wages but one needs to be prepared to face current reality when they choose a profession

Of course, but go reread what I quoted. In reality, most students studying to become teachers are well aware of the pay structure, but like any other rational person, they'd like to make more money doing what they feel is their calling.

You mean the attitude that you should consider pay when deciding on a career? Many people consider pay when deciding what to do, I certainly did, as did many of my friends, it is simply the smart thing to do. If a career couldn't provide the lifestyle I wanted, there wasn't much point in pursuing that career. I know what I've decided to pursue will pay $45k-$60k, starting plus professional advancement benefits and bonuses, fairly quick advancement, marginal health and retirement benefits, and an earning potential in the top 1% of Americans in 15 years, that information played a role in my decision to pursue the career I have. The salary and benefits teachers receive should play a role in anyone's decision to flow that career path.

For 9-10 months of work teachers are paid decently. Many school districts offer summer school that offers the possibility of a few more months income. The benefits are often fairly good and teachers can earn tenure, something that really doesn't exist outside of academia. I respect teachers and I've had many excellent ones, however, I think they were paid decently for their work when you consider benefits, time off, etc. Teachers benefits add an estimated 32% (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_9/ai_n31467946/) to their salary for their overall compensations. If you add 32% to that $32,000 you come out a little over $42,000 in total compensation; not bad for 9-10 months of work. Many teachers also get defined benefit pensions; pretty difficult to come by in the corporate world. Not to mention the early age teacher retirement plans often offer.

And our education system isn't bad because of the teachers or their pay, it is bad because school districts don't have proper money to spend on equipment and books, and because parents expect the school to cater to their and their child's every whim. The education system is bad because the system doesn't challenge students, we teach to the lowest standard and to the dumbest individuals in the school. Our education system would be much better if we simply failed students more often, instead of passing them with C's and D's, and if we challenge our students more. We also shouldn't pretend that everyone is going to college; school districts should offer programs in things like wielding, automotives, etc., so that we can remove students with no interest in college from the standard curriculum at some point and allow them to learn a skill that will provide a viable job and that the have some interest in.

I'd much rather see money spent on equipment, a more challenging curriculum, and expanded programs with different opportunities for students with no college interest instead of increased pay for teachers.

This is a good post, however I have a few thoughts. First, teacher benefits have been declining over the last decade, but pay hasn't increased commensurately and tenure is also going away. Moreover, many teachers work extra volunteer hours in libraries, after-school programs, etc. and are also likely to purchase items for their classroom and students, but are rarely reimbursed for these necessary expenses.
Teachers are paid decently, but it's important to keep these additional realities in mind.

Excellent point...

Excellent point again! ...

Maybe you two could get a room.

[CaptMurdock]

Precisely... taxpayers know best where to spend their money

Booze, cigarettes and porn... yee-ha.:rolleyes:

(OK, I'll give the last one a pass...)

[Badandy]

Excellent point... I've used this analogy myself time and again.

Except outright theft isn't necessary, some government spending is. I'm more libertarian than what's currently called Republican (you know, because I'm not religious) but even I realize that the government needs to do certain things. Otherwise, it would quite literally be anarchy. The government needs to take care of police/fire, infrastructure, and defense. By and large, they need to function where the market cannot: public goods, industries where extreme externalities exist, and other such things.


Precisely... taxpayers know best where to spend their money; government largess is at the liability of the taxpayer not the other way around!

I agree with you here, but why don't you go ahead and try to not pay taxes for a year? That will be a fun dispute between the you and the government.


My suspicion is that many herein are not in a tax bracket to fully realize the damage of growing entitlement programs on America - I too find it sad that tax cuts are being questioned when the principle of tax cuts are to return money to those that earned it!

Why exactly do you use the word "herein" so much? It's strange. Anyway, onto your point. The simple fact is we're in massive debt with a massive deficit. I know you'll blame that all on the "lefty libs" (which is only partially true), but really, the deficit came largely from George Bush who decided that he wanted to cut taxes (yay! I'm in favor of this!) without cutting spending (boo! I'm not in favor of this!). All these entitlement programs you rail against barely came under any fire under his Presidency and you'd at least hope to see tax cuts come along with spending cuts. So which is it? Are you going to keep cheering on tax cuts while at the same time admonishing the administration for a debt that was largely created by a Republican President? Or are you going to realize that the current Republicans only have one half of the puzzle figured out, and that continuing on their path of cutting taxes and still increasing spending is worse than the Democrats' plan of increasing taxes and increasing spending?


I fear you are right and that economic collapse of the nation will occur in 2010 since our foreign investors are none too happy with BHO's spendthrift on health and other matters

Oh, I get it, you use BHO because his middle name is Hussein. Original.

more specifically, in terms of the health care boondoggle, those in America happy with their health plans - which means most Americans - will see their payments escalate tremendously and senior citizens will be denied care and long lines will grow with rationed care... Lastly, those young Americans forced to buy insurance or be penalized/jailed will rebel in mass against that health plan propaganda which they were lied to about...

While your words are far more divisive, and thus less effective, than you realize, I largely agree with you here. I have neighbors who have a networth of about $10,000,000, so they're fairly wealthy. Turns out they're really excited for this health plan because their insurance will be cheaper than it is now. That's wrong. I should not have the subsidize the health insurance for people who can pay for it to begin with.

[rhsgolfer33]

This is a good post, however I have a few thoughts. First, teacher benefits have been declining over the last decade, but pay hasn't increased commensurately and tenure is also going away. Moreover, many teachers work extra volunteer hours in libraries, after-school programs, etc. and are also likely to purchase items for their classroom and students, but are rarely reimbursed for these necessary expenses.
Teachers are paid decently, but it's important to keep these additional realities in mind.

Indeed, if we are going to cut benefits we need to increase pay. As for purchasing classroom materials, if we actually funded our schools properly teachers wouldn't have to do it. Hopefully, one day, we'll have proper materials for students and teachers won't have to worry about whether or not they will have paper and what not. We should also increase the tax deduction for teachers who purchase classroom materials. That would help teachers while not forcing the government to directly lay out any additional funds for schools.

[Eraserhead]

I have neighbors who have a networth of about $10,000,000, so they're fairly wealthy. Turns out they're really excited for this health plan because their insurance will be cheaper than it is now.

The thing is there aren't that many people worth $10 million or more in the US. You can't just avoid making changes just because they benefit the rich. For example ISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Savings_Account)'s undoubtably benefit the wealthy as well as the middle-class.

Indeed, if we are going to cut benefits we need to increase pay. As for purchasing classroom materials, if we actually funded our schools properly teachers wouldn't have to do it. Hopefully, one day, we'll have proper materials for students and teachers won't have to worry about whether or not they will have paper and what not. We should also increase the tax deduction for teachers who purchase classroom materials. That would help teachers while not forcing the government to directly lay out any additional funds for schools.

There is also the 3 month summer holiday, people forget quite a bit after the UK's 6 week holiday so I expect they forget a lot over the much longer US one, especially if their family is poor so can't keep them entertained.