Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Mythical Tax Cuts 13

Journal by pudge

John Kerry says, "When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan."

First, let's be clear about what this actually means: the 98 percent getting a tax cut refers to keeping taxes exactly where they are, by extending the existing tax cuts. So he's using "cut" very loosely, at best.

Second, most of the cuts were just extended by Congress, and are not set to expire any time soon. The marriage penalty relief, the tax rate and bracket changes, the child tax credit increase, are all through 2010. So even if you could consider an extension of a cut to be a cut, the cuts are already extended through his potential first term in office, and beyond. Maybe he is making promises for a second term already? I wouldn't count on it.

Third, the middle class taxes will not go down. They will stay the same for almost everyone. He does want to give some tax cuts for health care and education expenses, but these affect only a minority of people, not "the middle class," let alone 98 percent of Americans.

Don't believe the hype. He has no plan to cut taxes for the middle class, let along 98 percent of Americans. It simply isn't true.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mythical Tax Cuts More

Mythical Tax Cuts

Comments Filter:

  • In other words (Score:3, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:25PM (#10377289) Journal
    To elaborate, when a lame-duck Bill Clinton orders an x% reduction in the maximum arsenic level in drinking water and Bush changes it to an x/2% reduction, the Democrats call that a raise in the maximum level. (When they're not complaining that Bush has allowed additional arsenic added to drinking water.)

    But when Bush passes tax cuts at the start of his presidency and Kerry doesn't rescind them, that's a tax cut, not maintenance of the existing rates.

    • To elaborate, when a lame-duck Bill Clinton orders an x% reduction in the maximum arsenic level in drinking water and Bush changes it to an x/2% reduction, the Democrats call that a raise in the maximum level.

      FWIW, Bush's current plan calls for *lowering* what the maximum level would have been under Clinton's lame duck plan, though it will take slightly longer to get there.

      (When they're not complaining that Bush has allowed additional arsenic added to drinking water.)

      Right. Keeping the levels as they
  • Continuing a tax cut is not a tax cut. Of course, by a similar metric, Bush didn't actually cut taxes, Bush Sr. didn't raise them, etc.

  • I had a hell of a time finding out where you got the idea that when Kerry said tax cut, he only meant extending recent tax cuts. It's on page five of the Kerry-Edwards Economic Plan [johnkerry.com], first bullet point.

    One point of clarity though, Kerry plan is to "extend and make permanent the middle class tax cuts." Redundant wording if you ask me, but still going beyond what Congress has done.

    • One point of clarity though, Kerry plan is to "extend and make permanent the middle class tax cuts." Redundant wording if you ask me, but still going beyond what Congress has done.

      I thought when President Bush was going to do this it was "tax cuts for the rich," but when Kerry does it, it is good? What gives? I'd rather have President Bush do it myself.

      Why should Kerry be elected if he just promises to do the same things for me that President Bush has already been doing?

      -Brent
      • Kerry plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making over $200,000. I have not seen details, but I believe he means that the upper tax brackets will be increased to their previous rates. So that's not all that inconsistent with his statement about "tax cuts for the rich."
  • Additionally, I think Kerry is mixing up tax cuts with proportional payment. His plan is to extend current cuts, but repeal the upper 2% cuts, thus having the upper income brackets pay a larger share of the taxes. When you compare the percentage of the total I currently pay vs the percentage of the total I will be paying, it's less. Doesn't mean I'm getting any more money back.

    --trb

    • "Every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build [a freer] world." - GW Bush

      Are you mocking Bush? Because not only is "freer" not a real world on any level of intelligent discourse, you can't have something that is more or less free than something else. It either is free, or it's not. There's no degree there at all.

      Doesn't mean I'm getting any more money back.

      Derivative math. If the rich previously paid the most taxes, now they pay less, and now we spend more, the difference comes from

      • Because not only is "freer" not a real world [sic] on any level of intelligent discourse

        Since when? It is not the most commonly used adjectival form, but it is perfectly valid. You erred.

        Every time you meet a situation, though you think at the time it is an impossibility and you go through the tortures of the damned, once you have met it and lived through it, you find that forever after you are freer than you were before. --Eleanor Roosevelt

        you can't have something that is more or less free than some

        • "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain

          Wow, looky there. I can quote misuse of the English language in the context of an intelligent, famous figure of U.S. history too. That doesn't make the word "ain't" a proper term, now does it? No, of course not. Do try to pay attention to the rest of the explanation as well: freer is not a (proper) word because it doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be more or less free than anything els

          • freer is not a (proper) word because it doesn't mean anything

            It is a proper word. It is in every dictionary I have. It does mean something: more free.

            Nothing can be more or less free than anything else. It just is or is not free.

            I already proved that to be false.

            I can't help that people abuse terminology such that the usage becomes unclear with time, but the fact is that America is not "free" because you are indeed limited in what you can do.

            This word has *never* been used primarily in such abso

            • Again, pudge, the word "ain't" is in every dictionary I have. That doesn't make it's usage proper, now does it?

              In addition, I'm looking at the most general definition of the word free and it makes it quite clear that the term means that some thing or person is free of any domination by another individual. You can't both be free of domination and dominated, so it's pretty clear by the definition of the word that I'm looking at this very moment that the condition of being free is quite absolute. I guess, how

              • You can't both be free of domination and dominated, so it's pretty clear by the definition of the word that I'm looking at this very moment that the condition of being free is quite absolute.

                You're an idiot. Everyone's liberty is restricted. Under your definition, no one is ever free, and Lincoln, Jefferson, and the Framers were all abusing the word.

                Then foe me so that your faux intellectual superiority isn't challeneged, just like you do to everyone else who disagrees with you and threatens to run yo

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close