Why do people hate middle-class tax cuts?

One thing that puzzles me on this board is that people vilify Kerry's tax plan b/c he supports keeping middle-class and lower-income tax cuts but repealing and even raising the high-income ones? For one thing, HUGE majorities of Americans have said that's the approach they prefer to Bush's, while HUGE majorities say they support Bush's to Kerry's. Plus, as Paul Krugman has noted, there's no economic advantage to repealing all the tax cuts and the same amount of money can be procured by raising taxes on the wealthy, as Clark (and even Lieberman) proposed?

What's more, isn't that a Progressive idea? Isn't this squarely behind the idea of progressive taxation? The idea that the wealthy ought to pay more in taxes b/c they can afford it, while the tax burden should be kept light on the middle and working classes b/c they can't afford it? Even Kucinich doesn't favor repealing the whole tax cut!

Maybe I'm just missing something. I don't intend this as a flame, but just as a statement of my own opinion. If you disagree, please explain why. It just puzzles me.

I'm for middle-class tax cuts in principle, but I just don't think the money exists right now to pay for everything if you keep any of the Bush* tax cuts.

The Payroll tax is a much larger tax and it should be made to be progressive to provide real tax relief.

Tell that to a married couple with 4 kids. Tell them that revoking $2,000 worth of child tax credits affects them very little.

;)

(see this summary of that plan)

You can talk to some seriously wealthy people who believe they are "middle class". Unless you're Bill Gates, there is ALWAYS someone richer.


This allows Bush to talk about the tax breaks for the "middle class" when he's referring to people making over $100,000 a year. And technically, he's correct. Because there are people who are a LOT more affluent then they.

The answer is to go back to having 6-7 tax brackets. Reagan said it was "too complicated". But looking up your tax bracket is the EASIEST part of doing taxes. The tough part is deductions. That's why all those "flat tax" plans were WAAAAYYY more complicated than what we have now. They just added MORE deductions to introduce a degree of "progressiveness".

We need A LOT more tax brackets for upper income individuals. The top tax bracket (over $20 million) would be 65%. Still a lot less than when Kennedy "cut taxes" on the wealthy (90% to 70%).

You would get full deductions for charity and "partial deductions" for investment. It's a moot issue for economics, but it's a good rhetorical point to sidestep the whole trickle down economics crap. The motivation for investment would be a partial deduction (besides the fact that they get to deduct losses).

BTW, if you get to deduct FULL losses, why do you get to pay "partial" taxes on earnings. In my judgement, you should only get a deduction for losses based on the taxation rate of the reciprocal earning. So when capital gains taxes are CUT, they should also cut the amount of loss you can declare on an investment. It's VERY unfair.

spend on universal healthcare or Bush's taxes and his record deficits which threaten to bankrupt the federal treasury?

No dessert until you eat your vegetables. Do you take cash out on your credit card when you are in debt?

If you are concerned about progressive taxation, look to payroll tax relief.

tax cuts can be a wonderful thing ONLY when we can afford them , which we cannot right now. Tax cuts need to precise and given to those who need them first. I don't think the top 1% need them as much as the lower-middle class do.

I think there should be WORKING CLASS tax cuts. The tax rates on the middle class (40k to 60 or 70k) are absolutely fine. Marginal rates on income over 150k should be go up with a maximum of 80% on incomes over a million.

We need to increase taxes on the upper income types and rich by 20% or more. And drop the income tax completely for single earners earning less than 20-30K or so.

be cut and the income limit should be eliminated to pay for that cut. I'm also fine with Kerry's stance that only upper-class tax cuts should be repealed. I think that it is important to note that the middle class tax cuts in Bush's bills weren't a very large percentage of the bills and keeping those tax cuts won't make a very large difference to the treasury, IMHO. I think it is important that when speaking about Bush's tax cuts, that folks remember to emphasize that the middle class tax cuts were a very small part of the overall policies put into place.

Note, I'm more than fine with middle class tax cuts. I think that they are good policy.

Kerry wants to keep Bush's middle class tax cuts. Don't people realize that Bush's middle class tax cuts expire after this year? The only way that the middle class taxes stay around is if more tax cuts are passed in this legislative session. And what will most likely happen is that, in addition to making the middle class tax cuts permanent, Bush and Delay will add in other tax cuts. The Democrats in Congress were played by this administration. They allowed the tax cuts to expire in order to keep the price tag down. But in the process, they gave Bush the perfect election year campaign tool. Bush now has a free pass on tax cuts, because he can say that his opponents want to raise taxes on the middle class (the same attack that Kerry used on Dean).

Where was it? Or was it only for couples with kids?

Cause we never get a middle class tax. I'm middle class, and I get an extra $0.50 a day from it. That's not enough for anything! Meanwhile my local taxes have gone up. And, the "middle class" tax cuts are bundled in with the tax cuts for the wealthy which really empty the treasury.

An actual, significant tax cut forthe middle class would be great, unless it came at the cost of essential govt services.

By stealing the payroll taxes of the working poor? This is what we are doing and I think it should stop.

Simple enough?

The only reasonable justification for a deficit economically is to employ people in order to create a full employment economy that will prop up demand and drive up wages. As the deficit is not being spent to do this, it should end. Read John Maynard Keynes and remember while doing it that Keynes was a socialist. (thus social security, unemployment insurance, trust busting, and high marginal tax rates all factored in to his plan)

To be truly progressive, cut the payroll tax and restore the income tax. Done properly this would benefit everyone with incomes below 40 to 50K a year, not just the people who happen make enough to owe income tax and are married or happen to have the right number of kids.

THat will get this country on the right path right away.

Cut income taxes for single earners earning 20 or so to zero.