"Tax cuts for the middle class"

[Stinky The Clown]

This is a very dangerous phrase. It continues the RIGHT WING claim ghat cutting taxes results in jobs.

We don't need tax cuts for the middle class. We need much higher taxes on the rich. **That** is the phrase any real progressive would be using.

[Claudia Jones]

1. agreed

That reinforces a right wing theme. Besides, the "middle class" doesn't exist anymore.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

There is no middle class anymore or just a very few left. We need as you said much higher taxes on the rich.

[Autumn]

3. I didn't listen. Did he say entitlement cuts for the poor?

Last thing we need are more tax cuts.

[Exilednight]

4. Krugman had a great editorial about this today in the NYT. n/t

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. They have been cut on enough. Stop the bleeding.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Citizens need to take responsibility and pay their taxes.

Reduce some of the deductions that taxpayers can take. Such as having a limit on mortgage deduction.

Have more tax brackets and lower the rates for the lower brackets.

[bvar22]

7. To fully appreciate how STRONG the Class War Propaganda is,

watch these two clips by Jon Stewart.
They are some of his BEST work.
Is IS a WAR,
and the lower 98% is losing badly.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[unblock]

8. i disagree with the premise that the right owns all tax cuts.

tax cuts for the middle class aren't necessarily about job creation, they're also about simply helping the middle class through extraordinary economic times. that's certainly a progressive notion.

that said, taxes and unemployment are related, only the relationship is, naturally, vastly more complex than the right wing would have you believe. the right wing meme is that the top marginal income tax rates and corporate income tax rates are the only ones that matter, and that wherever you are, lower always results in more job creation.

the reality is that marginal tax rates do play a role, but so do expectations of future marginal tax rates, the differential between the marginal tax rates for different types of income, and the distribution of income (which is affected by tax rates), among other things.


the economy is neither left- nor right-wing, it does what it does and responds to different solutions differently depending on the actual problems. in this case, the economy is demand-starved, particularly among the poor and middle class, so any way you get more money into their hands will help the economy and lead to more jobs.

so it actually is a job creation strategy, not because tax cuts always create jobs, but because it actually addresses one of the biggest reasons for the lack of jobs.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I, too, disagree

I understand your theory, and in different times, it might help. I just think, right now, that there is enough stimulative effect from this. At most, such a tax cut will allow a few people to buy a new (offshore made) flat screen teevee.

By taxing the rich until their eyes bleed, and penalizing cash hoarding corporations, including capital repatriation, we raise the money to pay for massive public spending. We need jobs and middle class confidence. That will come of lowered unemployment and long term job prospects doing meaningful work rebuilding the country.

A few hundred in tax relief is little more than a sugar high.

[unblock]

10. i agree that the kind of tax cuts we're talking about are woefully inadequate

especially because we're talking about merely extending the 2% payroll tax break that is already in effect and has proven itself to be insufficient.

to your point, also it's not so much the taxing the rich per se, but the massive public spending that it would permit, that helps solve the lack of demand that's causing low unemployment.

though, you are right in that more thoughtful tax incentives for the rich and for corporations would help matters. by this i mean incentives to hire american workers and to invest in america instead of hoarding and offshoring, which means something rather more complex than mindless lowering of rates. in particular, big penalties for doing the wrong thing.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I think we mostly agree.

And yes, the goal is to fund massive spending, not to punitively tax the rich.

[90-percent]

12. bumper sticker

If we can't tax the wealthy, can we eat them instead?

-90% Jimmy

[SoCalDem]

13. Tax cuts for people without jobs is no benefit

and most "middle class" people are not over-taxed (contrary to media hype).. UPPER classes are UNDERTAXED.

[hfojvt]

14. especially if one doesn't define the middle class

46% of Obama's supposed middle class tax cuts goto the top 20%.

Is the TOP 20% part of the middle class? That's not the way I define "middle" but some have disagreed here.

The bottom 60% only get 27.1% of Obama's supposed middle class tax cut.

Obama claims (just like Bush incidentally) that the average family will get $1,000 from his tax cut, but if you break that down by groups.

Bottom 20% - average tax cut $145
next 20% - average tax cut $320
MIDDLE 20% - average tax cut $579 (less than 60% of that $1,000)

but just like with Bush's tax cuts

top 1% - average tax cut $2,328
next 4% - average tax cut $2,137

Now some people might say, well $200 means more to a person in the bottom 20% than $2,000 does to somebody in the top 1%.

Then why bother giving the rich SOBs tax cuts?

Compare this to what Obama promised in the campaign - the making work pay (refundable) credit

bottom 20% - average tax cut $256
next 20% - average tax cut $322
middle 20% - average tax cut $406
top 1% - average tax cut $0
next 4% - average tax cut $143

and those numbers would be higher for the bottom groups except for the fact that REPUBLICANS reduced the making work pay credit from $500 per person, down to $400 per person because they could not stand giving tax credits to low income working Americans (like myself, even though I didn't take the credit)

Finally, a careful person might note that the middle 20% does better under this new Obama tax cut, they now get $579 versus $406 under the old plan. However, that is only because the social security tax cut is so much bigger. The making work pay credit only cost the government $57 billion in lost revenue whereas the social security tax cut costs $112 billion, with $51 billion of that going to the richest 20%. Meaning you could basically double the making work pay credit and it would then cost the same, provide more of an economic stimulus and not give 46% of its benefits to the top 20%.

[seabeyond]

15. We don't need tax cuts for the middle class

agree stinky. i didnt like seeing this either.

[JoeyT]

16. +1, but I sort of disagree.

Tax cuts for the rich = creating jobs belongs to the right wing.
Tax cuts for the working class that they'll go out and spend immediately, which will drive up demand, which will create jobs* = kind of sort of center left.


*In whatever countries all the manufacturing jobs are in. Not jobs here, obviously. For that we'd have to stop banging away at getting more free trade, and we're not going to do that.