Tax breaks for the middle-class vs tax breaks for upper income.?

Question

There is a debate today that tax breaks for upper income Americans creates jobs and helps the economy. This may be so, but what's the outcome?
Further centralization of wealth, as corporations and CEOs profit from higher earnings, increases the pressure for government entitlement programs like healthcare.
Isn't it much more sensible to keep the middle-class wealthy enough to afford to pay for it's own services rather than have the need for entitlement programs.
Even if tax breaks aimed at the middle-class don't stimulate economic growth, isn't not having the need for massive government programs equally beneficial?
Isn't it less of a strain on the economy to just take care of the needy rather than everybody?

GRRRR!
Most everybody who posted a great answer to this question has no email link.
That's so disappointing.

Answer 1

::sigh:: As usual, we have MORE right wingers spreading lies and misinformation here.

One of the people above stated that the top 20% pay 70%+ of the taxes in this country -- a standard and often repeated bit of "fox news"-style propaganda. What the misinformers fail to report is the fact that the top 20% also happen to own more than **90%** of this nation's wealth! So, if you really want to break it down into cold numbers and percentages, those top twenty-percenters are actually *underpaying* and are not shouldering their proportionate share of the tax burden.

Then there's the poster above me (rmagedon?)... spreading more misinformation. He claims that the Dems are currently trying to push people who earn 50,000 into the highest tax brackets. This is simply NOT true -- a deliberate lie, at worst; at best, a grossly misinformed manipulation of fact. Further, he claims that people who want to tax the rich are trying to steal money away from those who earn it. More crap! What about the slacker, idiot sons and daughters of millionaires and billionaires who stand to inherit HUGE sums of money that may not have even been earned by their *parents*?? How, in any way shape or form, have said slackers "earned" that money? They haven't. Have moron socialites like Paris Hilton (or GW Bush??) really done anything to merit the huge sums that they will inherit? Of course not. I just bet, though, that you are against any sort of inheritance taxes.

Further, do the grossly over-paid CEOs REALLY work so much harder than their underpaid laborers?? Maybe sometimes -- but to suggest that this is always the case is stupid. We do NOT live in a meritocracy. It's a lovely dream, but it's a myth. CEOs *used* to make (on average) about 20-times the pay that their average workers made; today, CEOs are now making 400-times the pay of their average worker. How can this tremendous redistribution of the wealth (upward) be good for the vast majority of citizens in this country?? And why is this gross excess, on the part of the rich, even necessary???

It's a fact that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" in this country is quickly becoming more of a canyon than a gap (a chasm that will soon be impossible to bridge, if we continue on our current course); this is what REALLY poses a threat to our system and to our country. I could go on and on...

Finally (to the right-wing chap who posted above), it's obscene for you to quote Ben Franklin to support your cheerleading for the excessively rich. Ben Franklin would have *hated* a lick-spittle for the idle rich, like you.

Answer 2

In short, tax breaks for the upper income brackets allow them to have more money to spend on capital goods (machines, research, training, etc.). Those capital goods allow for a bigger economy, creating jobs, increasing our Net GDP.... all wrapped up into one creates a higher standard of living in the United States.

Anyway, off that, I don't think we should have tax breaks at all. We should be using a Flat tax system with deductions in the first place. The only draw back for you dems is that we would need to get rid of some government programs (which we shouldn't have in the first place). The progressive tax we have right now it put in place to help the poorer people and fund programs.. Well it doesn't really help the poorer people at all, but the flat tax would definately. (Think a family of 4, making about $40,000 a year wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all, as well as anyone under that income.) In short, the dems only want to fund all these inefficient programs, which drain our economy in the first place.

Answer 3

What you are talking about is class warfare or envy. It is a purely communistic approach to the issue of the spread in wealth in the country. But it is much more than that.

How many people make $50K a year? Were you aware that the dems put that into the next to highest tax bracket?

What this means is that the middle class if you will since you like those kind of words, is taking it in the shorts.

Now for the CEO. How did he get to where he is? Do you think it remotely possible that he made huge sacrifices and worked extremely hard to put himself in that position? Do you think that maybe he earned it?

The primary problem with your argument is that you want to take from those who have earned it and give to those who have not. That in most instances is called theft.

If you want to start with some good ideas, eliminate a progressive tax, try fair, flat or my favorite sales. If the rich spend as much proportionately as the poor, then they will pay a lot more in sales tax and those that are frugal and save will get to keep more.

How about the wild idea of having congress only spend money for national security and cut out all of the rest? Maybe a little for defending the constitution. Maybe they should all work there for FREE, no perks, no bennies, no retirement. After all they are all millionaires or will be soon so they do not need the money. Cut their staffs by 75%, make congress do a little work for a change. Maybe put a time clock at the door, they punch in when they go to a session, and only give them minimum wage.

The primary problem in America today is congress, they are corrupt careerists that are raping our country. We need term limits NOW.

Ben Franklin said of congress, "They are of the People, and return again to mix with the People, having no more durable preeminence than the different Grains of Sand in an Hourglass. Such an Assembly cannot easily become dangerous to Liberty. They are the Servants of the People, sent together to do the People's Business, and promote the public Welfare; their Powers must be sufficient, or their Duties cannot be performed. They have no profitable Appointments, but a mere Payment of daily Wages, such as are scarcely equivalent to their Expences; so that, having no Chance for great Places, and enormous Salaries or Pensions, as in some Countries, there is no triguing or bribing for Elections"

Congress is taking Americans to the cleaners. Lets stop arguing communistic issues and argue american issues, get rid of careerists in congress that are bankrupting our country. If you did just that all of your points would be moot.

Answer 4

There are plenty of tax breaks that go to poor and middle class. Many tax breaks phase out for people in the upper 10-15%.

Don't forget that the upper 20% pay 72% (or more) of the taxes. But they don't have that much in earnings. net-- the upper 20% pay a higher burden of taxes vs. their earnings.

Tax breaks ought to be spread out across all income brackets.

What we must do is keep taxes as low as possible, control spending, reduce entitlements. We have way too many subsidies and entitlements to agribusiness, large companies, etc. We need to control spending better.

Answer 5

You're right. I like tax cuts but tax breaks for the rich doesn't help the economoy nor do the people. Is just wrong and trickle-down economics which has been proven not to work. Although, I do support tax breaks for corporations for the jobs they provide and tax breaks for small businesses will help the economy grow. This is all the tax breaks we need.

Answer 6

Supply side economics's never worked, the rich or those with the most money are not in numbers enough to consume enough everyday commodity's. They hoard their money not reinvest as is the plan in S.S.E. More jobs are created by giving the vast middle class and the poor more money as they are the true consumers, when they have more money they spend more money which calls for more products, which creates more jobs which creates more people with money to spend and so on. Bill Clinton showed how to do this as we were at "full employment" during his administration. What he did was tax the rich more, and reinvested that money in things that were needed in infrastructure, That created the first tier of jobs and it snowballed to be one of the greatest expansions I have ever seen in my 61 years.

Answer 7

The % reduction in income tax was larger for the middle class than for the wealthy. The only way to substantially cut taxes is to cut them for the people who PAY most of the taxes.

Answer 8

Do you know why tax breaks for the "wealthy" help the economy?

Small Businesses are classified as having under 500 employees. These are the biggest employers in America, estimated at around 80%.

Small Businesses pay "INDIVIDUAL" income taxes, because they are registered as S-corps, not corporate income taxes. So the tax cuts implemented by Bush enabled them to pay for health insurance for their employees, and hire new employees.

When the tax cuts are repealed by the democrats, people will be losing their jobs.

Answer 9

How about tax breaks for all who pay taxes? Thats as fair as you can get. The middle class gets theirs. The rich pay a higher % in taxes since their income is higher and they are in a higher tax bracket.

Answer 10

One of the economic indicators of economic collapse, as happened before the 30's Depression, is income bi-modality... or the elimination of the middle class as you describe it.