No, GWB's tax "cuts" give loads of money to the poor. Many people get all of their withholding plus thousands of dollars each year.

Prove it.

Do you want copies of my tax returns? I've received more back than withheld every years since at least 2003. This is from a wikipedia article but only details 2001. As you know, Bush further reduced taxes and removed more tax payers at the lowest level.

Er, how are you drawing that conclusion from what you posted? It does not say the reason for the credits.

Because the tax rate reductions actually shifted the burden further towards high income earners as well as not only removing more low income earners but also increasing the money they received in credits. It can't really be literally called a cut, I believe, because many people weren't paying to begin with and actually ended up receiving more money from the government. Of course some did receive actual rate reductions.

Also, to add to your original comment, it was Bush that removed the marriage tax penalty, with congress of course, and I assume that like the rest of his "cuts" that is set to expire soon.

Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credits, etc. I have extensive experience filing my own taxes. No matter how you slice it, the bottom of the wage earners actually receive money from the government when they file. You can clearly see that in the bottom quintile. This isn't any sort of mystery.

No, I get that, what I'm confused about is how you're making the connection that Bush's tax cuts are the cause.

Oh, okay. He further increased the numbers with regards to dollar amounts and people eligible. Of course our tax system is extremely progressive in nature and he didn't change that, just expanded it.

Yes, that's what Jon asked you to prove.

Cool. Good that I did then.

I didn't even pay any tax last year because I only made 1500$

Well, that's to be expected. You're still a child, aren't you?

Anecdotal evidence based on your own and only your own tax return: hasty generalization.

Edit:

Accepting that the tax cuts happened, and assuming that the lower classes have saved money since Bush passed the tax cuts, it remains to be supported that the tax cuts were the reason for the savings: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It remains to be supported that the lower classes have actually saved any extra money. (i.e. did the tax cuts result in a reduction of infrastructure spending and therefore the elimination of a large number of unskilled labor jobs?)

Try again Debate King.

This is why no one takes you seriously. Can you REALLY not see the blatant fallacies in what you just wrote? Allow me to paraphrase:

Bush's tax cuts gave money to the poor.
Poor people get credits from the government.
Therefore, Bush's tax cuts gave money to the poor.

Your argument is LITERALLY: A, B. Therefore, A.

It's blatantly, mathematically false. Literally, in EVERY FORM OF EXISTENCE IN ANY TIME OR ANY UNIVERSE, THIS ARGUMENT IS UNIVERSALLY INCORRECT. This argument is no more correct than saying 2 + 2 = 5.

I asked you if you wanted to see my returns, I didn't use them as evidence. I did post a link and a citation to a wikipedia article on the subject although I don't consider wikipedia to be a "source", per se. Merely a jumping point. You don't seem to be disputing the fact that low income wage earners receive more money in their returns than is withheld throughout the year and the fact that the size of that group and the dollar amounts received increased during Bush's reign. So now you are trying to expand the argument to say that the tax cuts resulted in lost jobs but we saw excellent job creation numbers for much of his reign and federal spending increased each year (significantly).

Try again Debate King.

Also, the point of me bringing this up was to refute JMs post. Normally he would be correct but low income earners could tweak their W4s to have virtually no tax withheld and still receive thousands back each year. We should probably refrain from further hijacking of this thread.

Jon said "Prove it." You said "Do you want to see my returns?" That's a very strong implication of use as evidence.

How do you not realize what you're saying?


No ****, it's not the point of the argument. It's the CAUSE that's in question.


He's offering an alternate explanation. Saying, "How do you know it's this, and not this instead?"

This is backpedaling.

Fallacy: irrelevant conclusion. By your own admission, the link you posted does not adequately (or at all?) discuss the issue you're talking about.

Fallacy: silence implies consent.

Fallacy: quibbling.

And you're wrong.

Bush: 1.1 million new jobs
Clinton: 22.7 million new jobs.
H.W. Bush: 2.6 million new jobs (in one term.)
Reagan: 16.1 million new jobs.
Carter: 10.3 million new jobs (in one term.)
Nixon: 11.3 million new jobs.
Johnson: 9.9 million new jobs (in one term.)
Kennedy: 5.9 million new jobs (in one term.)
Eisenhower: 3.5 million new jobs.
Truman: 5.5 million new jobs (in one term.)
Roosevelt: 19 million new jobs.

In reality it's the complete opposite of what you claim: Bush's job creation numbers are some of the worst in America's history. He narrowly edges out Obama and Hoover, the two 'depression Presidents.'

Source

Blaming presidents for the faults of the central bank: priceless

I can hardly wait to learn some econometrics and regression this year so I can finally (even at an amateur and obviously not 100% proof level) test some of Wookie's economic theories and causations

The one thing I'd like to know based on this thread, is since when do Presidents "reign" and are part of "regimes"? I'm not sure if wookie06 has brought up regimes in this thead, but I know he has in the past.

Just asking.

I haven't been online much lately & haven't been able to read a lot of threads. Would someone mind linking me to the thread(s) that started this discussion? It just sort of came out of nowhere & the initial post leaves much to be desired.

What the **** is wrong with you?

That's usually how Wookie's posts go.

Look at his signature. Look at his past postings. It's useless talking to a guy who entirely identifies himself by the political party he votes for - you'll never get through!

Give it up!

It was a rhetorical question. I'm sure you are familiar with those.



Sure it did. It stated that the lowest quintile actually receives money through the tax system.



Then dispute the fact that the lowest quintile actually receives money through the tax system or that the number of people and dollar amounts increased. We both know that they did.



Um, okay?



I'll take your word on the figures as I don't feel like playing around with that page. I just personally consider 52 months of job creation to be fairly remarkable considering the economy was in recession and the terrorist attacks shortly after his inauguration. I also believe that he and the economy suffered greatly from the democrat coop of 2006.

I guess I could just smartly link to a convoluted Excel spreadsheet at irs.gov but I prefer something that actually discusses the facts at hand. I find this article telling.

Notable is this excerpt from one paragraph that says



and this from point 2



So, let me get this straight, because I point out that Bush's tax policy increased the number of people that pay no taxes and increased the amount of money beyond their withholding that they are given I now have to debate some wide ranging economic philosophy that I didn't bring up to begin with? I guess next I'll be challenged to prove that I'm not a racist.



Yeah, there were a few posts on the topic before my comment.



According to JM, that is the appropriate use of the word (regime). Regime and reign have been used to described presidencies for quite some time.

Yeah. At some point you stop shaking your head at his arguments and start shaking it at the folks that actually take the bait.

Well it all started over here: http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=57534 when someone brought up tax returns

Joncy Vs Wookie is never quite as fun as Free Vs Yoshi, Spe Vs Sanity or Rob Vs Everyone.

Watching a pair of idiots hit each other with sticks is never fun.

Ah, thanks!

Oh really?

Fork this thread and get out

honestly, massassi's most entertaining debates were between firefox and DoGsRuLe (I think that is how he capitalized his name).

Now those were some entertaining fights.

I think we're looking at this issue all wrong. Can anyone honestly say that most of the poor people they've met don't suck? Perhaps they should be punished.

I retract.

BTW, just thought I would throw in there that a lot of the analysis that went into the tax cuts in no way shape or form included distributional analysis of the tax cuts when considering that tax cuts need to be financed somehow. Most of the econometric journals I've read have estimated (estimate, but many of them are ending up with the same result) that when you include both different types of financing for the tax cuts, that most households ended up worse off (even the higher income quintiles suffered in a relative big picture sense).

Tax cuts have their place. The way Bush did his was just unsound tax cutting policy. It was nowhere near the right time or place to enact the plan.

I can agree with that. Enacting a tax plan that resulted in nearly half of all wage earners paying no federal income tax or actually a net negative amount is pretty bad.

Just my two cents, but maybe if the USA had a tax system like some other countries, then things might work a little better.

Curious: what's better, less taxes or a better job (or a job at all)?