Not all tax cuts are Reaganesque or Bushian:

[Zynx]

I just want to ask a simple little question here.

Does a payroll tax credit of $400 per individual or $800 per couple equate to a marginal rate reduction on upper income earners from 35% to 30%?

The quick answer is no. The long answer is definitely no. The latter is supply-side while the former is Keynesian-style stimulus.

Guess which one isn't in the stimulus bill?

Those who have the knee-jerk response of saying "Tax cuts are bullshit! They're all supply-side nonsense!" really don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Tax cuts or credits for lower income earners are anything but supply-side. These sorts of people are no better than the Republicans who say "The New Deal didn't work". It's the same sort of nonsense, just a different version, but both are still nonsense.

Frankly, the stimulus bill should be a good deal larger, but that's a whole different discussion.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm not interested in the tax cut. I'm interested in increasing the taxes of the rich back

to pre-Reagan rates. We've been taking up the slack for the rich too damned long since Raygun.

[Zynx]

2. That has very little to do with what I wrote.

[sandnsea]

3. Especially if it's refundable in a paycheck

So a person can count on a regular increase over a period of time. It's small enough to pay a phone bill, or buy an outfit here and there. We aren't necessarily going to get this all at one time.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. Pay a phone bill?

$26.00 per month? Seriously, that increase might not even keep up with rising prices. I went to the grocery store tonight and everything I bought had increased in price from last week. If prices keep increasing on necessities and wages remain stagnant for people who are employed, this is going to spell major trouble. I can't even imagine what retired seniors on fixed incomes or unemployed people are going to face.

[phleshdef]

4. Thank you. Cutting taxes isn't evil or "anti-progressive". Obama certainly isn't catering to wealth.

Aside from that, I'd like to see a more fair taxation on people earning a lot of money from capital gains. They get less taxed percent wise than those of us on middle class incomes. Yet I also understand the wisdom in not rocking that boat while the economy is in a mess. After things start looking up for the economy, I may start expecting the Obama administration to push for those tax increases on the top 1%, but for now its just not a smart move to raise ANYONES taxes. Its first things first, but a lot of DUers aren't seeming to get that.

[Xipe Totec]

5. A tax credit is not a tax cut, though I get your point and support it

A tax credit you can get, even if you don't pay any taxes.

At this stage of the game, I don't have a problem with that.

[Zynx]

6. It's easier politically to call it a tax cut. It reduces your net tax due so

it reduces your effective rate. In many cases it will probably push it negative.

[tritsofme]

7. They took Obama's already weak tax credit and made it even smaller.

Let's talk about a year long payroll tax holiday for low income workers if you want some real stimulus.

[Two Americas]

8. yes they are

The idea that tax cuts are the way to approach political problems is Reaganomics. The idea is being advanced by this. Who the tax cuts supposedly help or don't is a secondary issue.

Why are Democrats trying to sell other Democrats on tax cuts?

[Zynx]

9. You proved my point magnificently.

Thank you. The fact you can't see the difference between marginal rate reductions and what are essentially cash handouts to poorer people is astonishing.

[Two Americas]

10. not at all

I am talking about the promotion of the idea of "tax cuts." If people were calling anything "tax cuts" I would make the same argument.

[Zynx]

16. Would you prefer I call the tax credits "cash handouts"?

Would that make you feel better?

[Two Americas]

17. don't worry about how I feel

How did the phrase "tax cuts" get in to the discussion at all? Because of the right wingers, that is how. Why would they want us talking about tax cuts, and saying that "not all tax cuts are bad?" Because they want to muddy the water about this approach, keep the idea alive and give it legitimacy, and be able to say that "even Democrats agree that tax cuts are good" in the future when this comes up again.

Bad idea. It is not merely about which words we use or who is happy with the wording - that is a shallow way to look at politics, that is close to the right wing "PC" speech and "offending" people arguments.

You are saying that people here should not be objecting to the tax cuts concept being part of the mix, because we should not see all tax cuts as bad. Whether or not a particular reduction in a tax is a good idea or not, seeing tax cuts as a good way to effect social policy, particularly in a time of crisis with millions of people sliding into desperate straits, can only serve the political right wing.

I do not understand why any Democrat would be trying to convince other Democrats that "not all tax cuts are bad." What we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthiest few - obviously. Any and all favorable talk about tax cuts works against that. In my opinion, all making below $35,000 should be paying no taxes of any kind at all. So if we are going to talk about tax cuts that benefit poor working people, let's start the discussion there.

[hologram]

11. True. However,

there are times when tax cuts are not the best solution to a problem. Like in a stimulus package.

In the current environment of job insecurity tax cuts for individuals will likely in many cases NOT be spent but rather added to people's "private unemployment insurance" fund: savings. That may allow some poeple to last an extra month or two without a job but then it's over. If large numbers of people squirrel away their tax cuts then the myopic tax cut approach may provide no stimulus at all to the economy. And, incidentally, nobody will get their bridges or roads repaired. Zilch.

Tax cuts for big business at any time are even more questionable because corporations are not obligated to spend the cuts in the U.S. As far as I know they can take the money they don't have to send to the IRS and build a new factory in China, thus stimulating the Chinese economy! U.S. workers are thus doubly screwed!

Perhaps small business tax cuts make more sense...?

[Zynx]

15. There was quite a bit in the way of small business tax relief.

I don't know if it is still there.

[CitizenPatriot]

12. didn't the republicans

insist that the tax cuts for the middle class be lowered from 1000k a year to 800 a year for couples?

I don't understand how they can run on tax cuts and then insist that tax cuts to the middle class be cut in order for them to agree to it.

What did I miss?

Edited to add: sorry this isn't directly a response to your post. I think it went over my head. I thought the CBO reports showed that tax cuts to the middle class and lower class (who may not pay taxes) were stimulative, as those classes would spend the money....hence, my question.

[backscatter712]

14. The payroll tax credit is actually economically stimulative.

$1.29 increase in GDP for every dollar spent on payroll tax holidays (a credit essentially accomplishes the same thing.)