Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Media

Journal Bill Dog's Journal: Depends on what the meaning of "tax cuts" is. 11

Journal by Bill Dog

The average person knows perfectly well what a "tax cut" means. Same for a "tax hike". If I pay less in taxes, they've been cut for me, if I pay more, they've been hiked on me.

But the Associated Press evidently doesn't just hire "average" people. Kind of like Bill Clinton being confused about the meaning of "is", the AP doesn't grok "tax cuts".

WASHINGTON -- The Senate gave final approval Thursday to a $70 billion election-year package of tax cuts...

"Election-year package"? I don't believe I've ever read legislation being described as a "non-election-year package", it's logical partner. Why not? Some bills are passed or take effect in non-election years. And in the U.S. Senate, it's an "election year" every other year, but I don't think I've ever read about, for example, an "even-year" hurricane.

But BD, you say, they're obviously (cleverly hiding behind innuendo to cast aspersions without stating anything unfactual in) trying to say that Republicans are only doing this because it's an election year, nevermind that that occurs 50% of the time so it's not really an insightful interjection. Cuz afterall, Republicans historically haven't had lowering taxes as a core value, right? I wonder if Democrats regain control of one or both houses if a tax hike bill will be described as an "election-year package". :-)

...that will extend...

Ah, we had to get the truth eventually.

The legislation provides a two-year extension of...

It also will extend for one year...

The bill also will extend for two years...

Aside from not asking and answering the logical question half the people are wondering of why they're just inching the extensions forward, instead of just committing to them, it's not until about the middle of the article that it's revealed that these tax cuts the writer is referring to in his/her May 11, 2006 piece actually took place years ago:
The debate followed partisan lines, with Republicans eagerly crediting the tax cuts, first enacted in 2003,...

So, despite the headline and dateline, i.e. as much as someone wanted the article to be about a tax cut being passed, it's not. The article text uses the word "extend" or "extension" 6 times. That's what it is. It is also staving off a tax hike. If not done, taxes would go (back) up. So why is the headline "Senate OKs $70 Billion Tax Cut Bill" instead of "Senate OKs ($0 Billion) Tax Rates Maintenance Bill"?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Depends on what the meaning of "tax cuts" is. More

Depends on what the meaning of "tax cuts" is.

Comments Filter:
  • When it isn't funded by a similar cut in spending. Why? Because then it becomes a hidden tax hike- the borrowed money needed to keep the government going costs interest to borrow, interest that the democrats will have to later raise your taxes to pay for. It's MORE expensive, in the long run, to hand out tax cuts to the rich if you don't lower spending by an equal amount.

    It's kind of like computer programming: You can pay through the nose in time and money now for good programmers to do it, or you can
    • Word is last month was a tax surplus.
      • Word is last month was a tax surplus.

        Must be some strange meaning of the word "Surplus" of which I have not previously been aware- last I heard we'd need an unexpected tax windfall of an addition $9 trillion just to break even. Any chance this "Surplus" was kind of like Clinton's and consisted entirely of made-up Enronesque accounting?
        • I'm still chasing down the rumor myself.
          • I'll believe it when all national debt, both consumer and government, is repaid. When that happens, we'll truly once again be back to owing nothing. But as long as we have an irresponsibile administration that thinks a $9 trillion a year deficit spending cieling is sustainable, as long as we have trade policies that cost us $1.08 for ever $1 that we earn, we cannot continue to claim that taxpayers deserve tax cuts, or that the United States as a whole is prosperous.
            • So the government isn't allowed to take on debt to invest in the populace?
              • So the government isn't allowed to take on debt to invest in the populace?

                Not and still claim a tax surplus coming in. Or, for that matter, claim that the economy is still doing well while marginal consuming still exceeds 1.

                Having to invest in your population (transfer taxes from one group to another) is a sign of things going VERY badly. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere- I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to lie about the interferance. I think if they weren't, th

                • The government is a mirror of the people, and while the people hold such high consumer debt you are barking up the wrong Marxism.
                  • The government is a mirror of the people, and while the people hold such high consumer debt you are barking up the wrong Marxism

                    Who told us to go out and spend after 9-11? Who signed away trade tariff rights to "stop protectionism"? To some extent yes- I agree that the government is a mirror of the people- but until the people vote independantly on EVERYTHING the government does to interfere in the market- the politicians have to take some of the blame too.

                    As far as I'm concerned, usury and banks shoul
    • Aside from your unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) troll disparaging Indian programmers, you're right, a tax cut without a commensurate reduction in spending is loaning money to oneself, and not really a net gain, and in fact in the long run a net loss.

      However:

      1) In bad economic times in my household, I'll gladly take that -- I would take out a home equity loan/borrow from an IRA/run up credit card balances to keep myself afloat. Same for the country. I would go into more debt to get another degree or ot
      • 1) In bad economic times in my household, I'll gladly take that -- I would take out a home equity loan/borrow from an IRA/run up credit card balances to keep myself afloat. Same for the country. I would go into more debt to get another degree or otherwise train for another career. Like tax cuts spurring economic recovery, nothing in life is guaranteed, but it typically works. Beats the hell out of doing nothing but shrugging and saying we're in a malaise.

        Yes, but then don't go on to continue the cause of

Slashdot Top Deals

The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it. -- Anthony Burgess

Close