Weren't The, "Bush Tax Cuts" only for the Wealthy?

[crin63]

It seems to me that all we heard was that the, "Bush Tax Cuts" were only for, "The Rich". Then why are Democrats talking about only repealing the, "Bush Tax Cuts" on the wealthiest? That implies that there were tax cuts for everyone just like Republicans and Conservatives kept arguing. Apparently there are and were $285 Billion in tax cuts for the non-wealthy (read Middle-Class) in the, "Bush Tax Cuts".



Pelosi said. She said Congress would push through $285 billion more in tax relief before this session is out by extending expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts for everyone but the wealthiest.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/92609-house-democrats-use-tax-day-to-publicize-cuts-for-middle-class

[KarlMarx]

This reminds me of a rant that I've been putting together in my mind regarding "paying your fair share of taxes". I guess this is as good a time as any to put my thoughts in writing.

When a politician talks about paying your fair share of taxes, what does he mean exactly?

It's implied that paying taxes is virtuous and does society good. Saving money, on the other hand, is seen as being greedy.

In fact, paying taxes benefits the government, not society. And let's be frank, "The People" and "The Government" are two separate things. If that was not true, then there would be no need for "The Constitution" to protect "The People" from "The Government".

Now that I've made that clear, what is "paying your fair share" of taxes supposed to mean? It's as if you took everything the government spends, divide it by the number of tax payers and, voila, that's the fair share.

The problem is that the amount that the government spends is growing at a rate, that, if you were to do something like that, your fair share would be 3.5 Trillion/300 million or about $11,666 per person (a family of 4 would have to pay about 46,666 dollars)... the next year would be an even bigger number because the Government keeps spending more and more each year.

So... I propose a different approach... instead of each citizen being called upon to pay "their fair share" of taxes, let's place the onus on the Government to keep its spending to within a given percentage of GDP. If GDP is 15 Trillion dollars, then government would have to keep its spending to within its fair share.

Now, granted, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt alone account for about 3 Trillion a year (that's about 20% of GDP), which seems awfully high...

Which brings me to the conclusion that *something* must be done about the Federal Debt, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.... I know that Defense is already under quite a bit of scrutiny.

[darin]

In fact, paying taxes benefits the government, not society. And let's be frank, "The People" and "The Government" are two separate things. If that was not true, then there would be no need for "The Constitution" to protect "The People" from "The Government".

That's signature material bro...well-said.

[cat slave]

This reminds me of a rant that I've been putting together in my mind regarding "paying your fair share of taxes". I guess this is as good a time as any to put my thoughts in writing.

When a politician talks about paying your fair share of taxes, what does he mean exactly?

It's implied that paying taxes is virtuous and does society good. Saving money, on the other hand, is seen as being greedy.

In fact, paying taxes benefits the government, not society. And let's be frank, "The People" and "The Government" are two separate things. If that was not true, then there would be no need for "The Constitution" to protect "The People" from "The Government".

Now that I've made that clear, what is "paying your fair share" of taxes supposed to mean? It's as if you took everything the government spends, divide it by the number of tax payers and, voila, that's the fair share.

The problem is that the amount that the government spends is growing at a rate, that, if you were to do something like that, your fair share would be 3.5 Trillion/300 million or about $11,666 per person (a family of 4 would have to pay about 46,666 dollars)... the next year would be an even bigger number because the Government keeps spending more and more each year.

So... I propose a different approach... instead of each citizen being called upon to pay "their fair share" of taxes, let's place the onus on the Government to keep its spending to within a given percentage of GDP. If GDP is 15 Trillion dollars, then government would have to keep its spending to within its fair share.

Now, granted, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt alone account for about 3 Trillion a year (that's about 20% of GDP), which seems awfully high...

Which brings me to the conclusion that *something* must be done about the Federal Debt, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.... I know that Defense is already under quite a bit of scrutiny.


Excellent rant...ditto!:clap::thewave: