A Real Middle Class Tax Cut Plan

The fact of the matter is that the middle class has been hurt the most by the Obama economy. Mitt Romney is correct on that. His policies of spending, targeted tax credits, and regulations have hurt the economy. We need tax reduction. However, Republicans have largely just proposed large tax cuts for the rich. These may have a positive impact on growth, but the best tax cuts are pro growth tax cuts for the middle class. These cost less revenue, provide more direct benefit for the middle class, and help increase growth in the economy by fueling consumption and enhancing incentives for productive behavior.

A successful tax cut has three features. First, it must be permanent. Temporary tax breaks dont stimulate consumption. As the permanent income hypothesis tells us, people save temporary payments and refunds so there really is no stimulutive effect. Also, certainty is extremely important for economic growth. Second, a tax cut must enhance incentives for productive behavior. High tax rates discourage work and investment. Tax reductions must relieve this discouraging effect to a degree. Third, the tax cut must help a group that needs the tax cut. A permanent tax rate cut for the rich would meet the first two criteria, but most people wold agree that the rich do not need a tax cut.

This does not mean I don't support lower tax rates for all income groups. I do, and I am absolutely against raising taxes on anyone including the rich. However, tax relief should be aimed at the middle class right now. So, without further adieu. Here is a real middle class tax cut plan that would help middle class families and enhance the economy:

1.) Make permanent all the Bush Tax Cuts

2.) Eliminate the AMT

3.) Reduce the bottom four tax rates of the personal income tax by 20% across the board from 28%, 25%, 15%, and 10% to 22.4%, 20%, 12%, and 8%. The top two tax rates stay the same at 33% and 35%.

4.) Eliminate all taxes on savings and investments for families making under $250,000 a year and individuals making under $200,000 a year. The tax rate stays at 15% for families and individuals making above this amount.

5.) Make these tax cuts permament

6.) Require a 2/3 majority in both chambers to raise taxes in the future

These changes will help the middle class and enhance economic growth.

At 3/8/2012 8:30:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The fact of the matter is that the middle class has been hurt the most by the Obama economy. Mitt Romney is correct on that. His policies of spending, targeted tax credits, and regulations have hurt the economy. We need tax reduction. However, Republicans have largely just proposed large tax cuts for the rich. These may have a positive impact on growth, but the best tax cuts are pro growth tax cuts for the middle class. These cost less revenue, provide more direct benefit for the middle class, and help increase growth in the economy by fueling consumption and enhancing incentives for productive behavior.

A successful tax cut has three features. First, it must be permanent. Temporary tax breaks dont stimulate consumption. As the permanent income hypothesis tells us, people save temporary payments and refunds so there really is no stimulutive effect. Also, certainty is extremely important for economic growth. Second, a tax cut must enhance incentives for productive behavior. High tax rates discourage work and investment. Tax reductions must relieve this discouraging effect to a degree. Third, the tax cut must help a group that needs the tax cut. A permanent tax rate cut for the rich would meet the first two criteria, but most people wold agree that the rich do not need a tax cut.

This does not mean I don't support lower tax rates for all income groups. I do, and I am absolutely against raising taxes on anyone including the rich. However, tax relief should be aimed at the middle class right now. So, without further adieu. Here is a real middle class tax cut plan that would help middle class families and enhance the economy:

1.) Make permanent all the Bush Tax Cuts

2.) Eliminate the AMT

3.) Reduce the bottom four tax rates of the personal income tax by 20% across the board from 28%, 25%, 15%, and 10% to 22.4%, 20%, 12%, and 8%. The top two tax rates stay the same at 33% and 35%.

4.) Eliminate all taxes on savings and investments for families making under $250,000 a year and individuals making under $200,000 a year. The tax rate stays at 15% for families and individuals making above this amount.

5.) Make these tax cuts permament

6.) Require a 2/3 majority in both chambers to raise taxes in the future


These changes will help the middle class and enhance economic growth.

I was in complete agreement until number 5

At 3/8/2012 8:32:13 PM, imabench wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:30:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The fact of the matter is that the middle class has been hurt the most by the Obama economy. Mitt Romney is correct on that. His policies of spending, targeted tax credits, and regulations have hurt the economy. We need tax reduction. However, Republicans have largely just proposed large tax cuts for the rich. These may have a positive impact on growth, but the best tax cuts are pro growth tax cuts for the middle class. These cost less revenue, provide more direct benefit for the middle class, and help increase growth in the economy by fueling consumption and enhancing incentives for productive behavior.

A successful tax cut has three features. First, it must be permanent. Temporary tax breaks dont stimulate consumption. As the permanent income hypothesis tells us, people save temporary payments and refunds so there really is no stimulutive effect. Also, certainty is extremely important for economic growth. Second, a tax cut must enhance incentives for productive behavior. High tax rates discourage work and investment. Tax reductions must relieve this discouraging effect to a degree. Third, the tax cut must help a group that needs the tax cut. A permanent tax rate cut for the rich would meet the first two criteria, but most people wold agree that the rich do not need a tax cut.

This does not mean I don't support lower tax rates for all income groups. I do, and I am absolutely against raising taxes on anyone including the rich. However, tax relief should be aimed at the middle class right now. So, without further adieu. Here is a real middle class tax cut plan that would help middle class families and enhance the economy:

1.) Make permanent all the Bush Tax Cuts

2.) Eliminate the AMT

3.) Reduce the bottom four tax rates of the personal income tax by 20% across the board from 28%, 25%, 15%, and 10% to 22.4%, 20%, 12%, and 8%. The top two tax rates stay the same at 33% and 35%.

4.) Eliminate all taxes on savings and investments for families making under $250,000 a year and individuals making under $200,000 a year. The tax rate stays at 15% for families and individuals making above this amount.

5.) Make these tax cuts permament

6.) Require a 2/3 majority in both chambers to raise taxes in the future


These changes will help the middle class and enhance economic growth.

I was in complete agreement until number 5

What's wrong with number 5?

Making the tax cuts permanent is absolutely essential to this plan because it allows for long term planning. Temporary tax cuts don't stimulate growth. People just save them and don't change behavior at all.

I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

This.

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

So you eliminate or severely curtail many social and other programs that government has. Genius. Hey, the free market will voluntarily heal the sick, feed the poor, and care for the elderly. The free market will protect the environment. The free market will build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Small Government values!

At 3/8/2012 9:04:16 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

So you eliminate or severely curtail many social and other programs that government has. Genius. Hey, the free market will voluntarily heal the sick, feed the poor, and care for the elderly. The free market will protect the environment. The free market will build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Small Government values!

^ that basically sums it up for why i was against #5

At 3/8/2012 9:04:16 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

So you eliminate or severely curtail many social and other programs that government has. Genius. Hey, the free market will voluntarily heal the sick, feed the poor, and care for the elderly. The free market will protect the environment. The free market will build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Small Government values!

Yes, the free market is far better at delivering health care. It is far better with the environment. And, we can still afford a basic safety net, infrastructure, and a military.

So, yes.

At 3/8/2012 9:06:14 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:04:16 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

So you eliminate or severely curtail many social and other programs that government has. Genius. Hey, the free market will voluntarily heal the sick, feed the poor, and care for the elderly. The free market will protect the environment. The free market will build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Small Government values!

Yes, the free market is far better at delivering health care. It is far better with the environment. And, we can still afford a basic safety net, infrastructure, and a military.

So, yes.

Before the U.S.A. had better regulation of business and had social programs, the results was unpleasant living and working conditions that were prevalent, wage slavery, high income inequality, poor quality goods (especially in food -- want some rat feces and chemicals in that "pork"?)

The environment was becoming trashed. Child labor was rampant. The corporations and the wealthy ruled with their political machines (surprisingly - some by the Democratic party -- but those were still corrupt).

The free market will eliminate the needs of the programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security, aid to the disabled, unemployment benefits, workers compensation, nutrition aid to the newborn and mothers, Pell Grants for those in poverty, job training assistance for those vulnerable, student-loan programs, combating climate change, border control, developmental assistance, the Department of Homeland Defense, trade agreements that include protections for the environment and job-retraining programs, incentives to invest in areas with low economic ratings, minimum wage laws, microcredit, the Small Business Administration, Family and Medical Leave law, child tax credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Civil Rights, clean air, clean water, strong infrastructure, safe food, safe transportation that is also effective, safe workplaces, access to affordable and quality healthcare, preservation of natural parks and national forests and monuments, building highways, advanced high-speed rail, accelerated broadband connections that are nationwide, a national electric grid, critical research and development in areas such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, making sure the market is on a more level playing field, the GI bill, the Federal Housing Authority, anti-discrimination policies, the National Weather Service, basic scientific research, drug safety and development programs, and making sure goods are of sufficient quality. Also throw out the need of a stable economy, economic security, and safe products.

http://www.perc.org...

In a Free Market, environmental protection will in fact be better because of the focus on property rights.

At 3/8/2012 9:24:23 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:06:14 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:04:16 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:52:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/8/2012 8:51:30 PM, Contra wrote:
I could not imagine how you could expect to pay for the government's programs then.

You cut them.

So you eliminate or severely curtail many social and other programs that government has. Genius. Hey, the free market will voluntarily heal the sick, feed the poor, and care for the elderly. The free market will protect the environment. The free market will build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Small Government values!

Yes, the free market is far better at delivering health care. It is far better with the environment. And, we can still afford a basic safety net, infrastructure, and a military.

So, yes.

Before the U.S.A. had better regulation of business and had social programs, the results was unpleasant living and working conditions that were prevalent, wage slavery, high income inequality, poor quality goods (especially in food -- want some rat feces and chemicals in that "pork"?)

The environment was becoming trashed. Child labor was rampant. The corporations and the wealthy ruled with their political machines (surprisingly - some by the Democratic party -- but those were still corrupt).

The free market will eliminate the needs of the programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security, aid to the disabled, unemployment benefits, workers compensation, nutrition aid to the newborn and mothers, Pell Grants for those in poverty, job training assistance for those vulnerable, student-loan programs, combating climate change, border control, developmental assistance, the Department of Homeland Defense, trade agreements that include protections for the environment and job-retraining programs, incentives to invest in areas with low economic ratings, minimum wage laws, microcredit, the Small Business Administration, Family and Medical Leave law, child tax credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Civil Rights, clean air, clean water, strong infrastructure, safe food, safe transportation that is also effective, safe workplaces, access to affordable and quality healthcare, preservation of natural parks and national forests and monuments, building highways, advanced high-speed rail, accelerated broadband connections that are nationwide, a national electric grid, critical research and development in areas such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, making sure the market is on a more level playing field, the GI bill, the Federal Housing Authority, anti-discrimination policies, the National Weather Service, basic scientific research, drug safety and development programs, and making sure goods are of sufficient quality. Also throw out the need of a stable economy, economic security, and safe products.

You couldn't be more wrong.

First, saying that increasing government regulations caused an increase in standard of living is just absurd. Standard of living increased because of economic growth. The increasing government regulations actually reduced growth. So, increasing government actually held back increasing living standards.

Furthermore, we can still afford all of the large programs with lower tax rates. They will be leaner and some small programs will be eliminated. However, we also need to remember that lower tax rates mean more economic output and, therefore, revenue.

In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

At 3/8/2012 9:34:04 PM, Contra wrote:
In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

See, this is why I made the "the Ignorance of Liberals" thread.

The idea that the profit motive causes environmental damage and the idea that government regulations have led to an increase in standard of living just because standard of living has gone up over time is just ignorant.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but I really don't know how to respond to this.

You couldn't be more wrong.

No, I think I'm pretty accurate.

First, saying that increasing government regulations caused an increase in standard of living is just absurd.

Clean air, clean water, quality goods. A shame.

Standard of living increased because of economic growth. The increasing government regulations actually reduced growth.

True; but government facilitated a better future.

Furthermore, we can still afford all of the large programs with lower tax rates. They will be leaner and some small programs will be eliminated. However, we also need to remember that lower tax rates mean more economic output and, therefore, revenue.

You can't really make these programs slimmer without hurting the nation. Plus, waste is already pretty low (2% of total money spent - not including the results of Obama's executive order against waste).

By some small programs: you are not talking about the large list I listed. You are most likely talking about programs like P.B.S., National Endowment of the Arts, etc.

Plus, tax cuts don't lead to much more revenue. Need I point to the Bush Tax Cuts on their results on revenue?

At 3/8/2012 9:44:28 PM, Contra wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong.

No, I think I'm pretty accurate.

First, saying that increasing government regulations caused an increase in standard of living is just absurd.

Clean air, clean water, quality goods. A shame.

Standard of living increased because of economic growth. The increasing government regulations actually reduced growth.

True; but government facilitated a better future.

Furthermore, we can still afford all of the large programs with lower tax rates. They will be leaner and some small programs will be eliminated. However, we also need to remember that lower tax rates mean more economic output and, therefore, revenue.

You can't really make these programs slimmer without hurting the nation. Plus, waste is already pretty low (2% of total money spent - not including the results of Obama's executive order against waste).

By some small programs: you are not talking about the large list I listed. You are most likely talking about programs like P.B.S., National Endowment of the Arts, etc.

Plus, tax cuts don't lead to much more revenue. Need I point to the Bush Tax Cuts on their results on revenue?

Tax cuts, through increased economic growth, do lead to more revenue in some cases.

So, yes, we can afford the major programs with lower tax rates.

At 3/8/2012 9:48:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:44:28 PM, Contra wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong.

No, I think I'm pretty accurate.

First, saying that increasing government regulations caused an increase in standard of living is just absurd.

Clean air, clean water, quality goods. A shame.

Standard of living increased because of economic growth. The increasing government regulations actually reduced growth.

True; but government facilitated a better future.

Furthermore, we can still afford all of the large programs with lower tax rates. They will be leaner and some small programs will be eliminated. However, we also need to remember that lower tax rates mean more economic output and, therefore, revenue.

You can't really make these programs slimmer without hurting the nation. Plus, waste is already pretty low (2% of total money spent - not including the results of Obama's executive order against waste).

By some small programs: you are not talking about the large list I listed. You are most likely talking about programs like P.B.S., National Endowment of the Arts, etc.

Plus, tax cuts don't lead to much more revenue. Need I point to the Bush Tax Cuts on their results on revenue?

Tax cuts, through increased economic growth, do lead to more revenue in some cases.

So, yes, we can afford the major programs with lower tax rates.

Taxes are at their lowest rates in over 60 years.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...#

At 3/8/2012 9:51:24 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:48:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:44:28 PM, Contra wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong.

No, I think I'm pretty accurate.

First, saying that increasing government regulations caused an increase in standard of living is just absurd.

Clean air, clean water, quality goods. A shame.

Standard of living increased because of economic growth. The increasing government regulations actually reduced growth.

True; but government facilitated a better future.

Furthermore, we can still afford all of the large programs with lower tax rates. They will be leaner and some small programs will be eliminated. However, we also need to remember that lower tax rates mean more economic output and, therefore, revenue.

You can't really make these programs slimmer without hurting the nation. Plus, waste is already pretty low (2% of total money spent - not including the results of Obama's executive order against waste).

By some small programs: you are not talking about the large list I listed. You are most likely talking about programs like P.B.S., National Endowment of the Arts, etc.

Plus, tax cuts don't lead to much more revenue. Need I point to the Bush Tax Cuts on their results on revenue?

Tax cuts, through increased economic growth, do lead to more revenue in some cases.

So, yes, we can afford the major programs with lower tax rates.

Taxes are at their lowest rates in over 60 years.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...#

Let me make a point. In 2007, after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, Federal revenue was 18.5% of GDP. In 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in office, spending was 18.2% of GDP.

So, even with the Bush tax cuts, we could still afford a Clinton sized government and run a surplus. Was the Clinton government too small for you?

At 3/8/2012 9:42:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:34:04 PM, Contra wrote:
In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

See, this is why I made the "the Ignorance of Liberals" thread.

The idea that the profit motive causes environmental damage and the idea that government regulations have led to an increase in standard of living just because standard of living has gone up over time is just ignorant.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but I really don't know how to respond to this.

minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, reasonable pay, forcing coal companies to not pay employees with their own made up currency, adequete housing, this wasnt caused by the free market the government under Teddy Roosevelt changed all of this through government intervention not the free market

At 3/8/2012 9:56:06 PM, imabench wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:42:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:34:04 PM, Contra wrote:
In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

See, this is why I made the "the Ignorance of Liberals" thread.

The idea that the profit motive causes environmental damage and the idea that government regulations have led to an increase in standard of living just because standard of living has gone up over time is just ignorant.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but I really don't know how to respond to this.

minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, reasonable pay, forcing coal companies to not pay employees with their own made up currency, adequete housing, this wasnt caused by the free market the government under Teddy Roosevelt changed all of this through government intervention not the free market

That is incorrect. Hours worked was falling before labor laws. Also, the minimum wage has done more harm than good.

The fact of the matter is that economic growth is the only reason that workers have seen an increase in standard of living. It would've been even better without all of those regulations.

At 3/8/2012 9:57:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:56:06 PM, imabench wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:42:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:34:04 PM, Contra wrote:
In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

See, this is why I made the "the Ignorance of Liberals" thread.

The idea that the profit motive causes environmental damage and the idea that government regulations have led to an increase in standard of living just because standard of living has gone up over time is just ignorant.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but I really don't know how to respond to this.

minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, reasonable pay, forcing coal companies to not pay employees with their own made up currency, adequete housing, this wasnt caused by the free market the government under Teddy Roosevelt changed all of this through government intervention not the free market

That is incorrect. Hours worked was falling before labor laws. Also, the minimum wage has done more harm than good.

The fact of the matter is that economic growth is the only reason that workers have seen an increase in standard of living. It would've been even better without all of those regulations.

I ask you to re-read my post listing some beneficial government programs.

At 3/20/2012 7:52:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:57:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:56:06 PM, imabench wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:42:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

At 3/8/2012 9:34:04 PM, Contra wrote:
In the late 1800s, before regulation, air, water, land, and the environment was damaged by businesses to gain higher profits.

I also don't really support arsenic and mercury in our water system.

See, this is why I made the "the Ignorance of Liberals" thread.

The idea that the profit motive causes environmental damage and the idea that government regulations have led to an increase in standard of living just because standard of living has gone up over time is just ignorant.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but I really don't know how to respond to this.

minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, reasonable pay, forcing coal companies to not pay employees with their own made up currency, adequete housing, this wasnt caused by the free market the government under Teddy Roosevelt changed all of this through government intervention not the free market

That is incorrect. Hours worked was falling before labor laws. Also, the minimum wage has done more harm than good.

The fact of the matter is that economic growth is the only reason that workers have seen an increase in standard of living. It would've been even better without all of those regulations.

I ask you to re-read my post listing some beneficial government programs.

I know the government likes to take credit for the good things that economic growth brings.