The Hidden Agenda behind Tax Cuts

[Marc]

From TruthOut - Tuesday 17 February 2009:

In Reply to Parent Post by Joe Brewer

The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate.

Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering. It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public. We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

Read more...

[Craig H.]

So, I should ignore the waste, inefficiency, and just plain greedy stuff that they spend MY money on? I shouldn't be unhappy with the hypocrisy and corruption?

And for "services" that, for the most part, I care nothing about. Like transferring MY money to the banks and the big three.

Sheesh.

[Valeri]

In Reply to Parent Post by Craig H.

So, I should ignore the waste, inefficiency, and just plain greedy stuff that they spend MY money on? I shouldn't be unhappy with the hypocrisy and corruption?

And for "services" that, for the most part, I care nothing about. Like transferring MY money to the banks and the big three.

Sheesh.

Waste & inefficiency should not be ignored by anyone; hypocrisy & corruption have always been with us and unfortunately always will; these are personal failures that not everyone shares.

What "services" do you not care about (other than the banks & automotive)?

[KenQE]

There is no "Hidden Agenda" behind tax cuts. Tax Cuts are just as they seem, reduce the amount of money required from the citizens of the country.

Using the term Hidden Agenda is trying to cast a dark impression over the truth of a "Tax Cut", letting the citizens keep more of what they earn and not removing it from them by the force of the government.

Its that simple.

[Craig H.]

In Reply to Parent Post by Valeri

Waste & inefficiency should not be ignored by anyone; hypocrisy & corruption have always been with us and unfortunately always will; these are personal failures that not everyone shares.

What "services" do you not care about (other than the banks & automotive)?

Let's just say transfer payments in general, those included (by far most of the budget).
Funding for the arts.
For the federal government, education (best left to state and local, not in that order).
$300,000 plane trips by Pelosi (cost per when she goes home).

Speaking of that, isn't it strange that while telling the CEOs not to buy or use corporate jets, the fat cats in Washington has a fleet of nice jets for their own use, paid for by us. Delta just isn't good enough, I guess. So, lets include those as well.

Farm subsidies for the mega farms.

The sugar industry protection laws.

That's just off of the top of my head.

[Craig H.]

In Reply to Parent Post by KenQE

There is no "Hidden Agenda" behind tax cuts. Tax Cuts are just as they seem, reduce the amount of money required from the citizens of the country.

Using the term Hidden Agenda is trying to cast a dark impression over the truth of a "Tax Cut", letting the citizens keep more of what they earn and not removing it from them by the force of the government.

Its that simple.

Oh, c'mon, Ken. The money is all owned by the government. It even has their name on it. They just allow us to use it out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Jennifer Kirley]

Ah, the tireless circular argument:

It's broken, so throw it away. Besides, I don't care about it, it's not there for me."

We can start by debunking the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. To help make the case, I included a link to the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank versus a only linking to a liberal think tank like this one.

In any case, why argue? Taxes are already being cut, though not really for you. Remember that claim that U.S. businesses are the highest taxed anywhere, and that we need to lower their taxes before they go overseas? Too late. Here, we can see the GAO's opinion that under reporting income in personal and income tax returns cost the Treasury about $345 billion in 2001. That's close to half the value of this stimulus package in just one year!

I will use a personal example of why I disagree with the constant pressure to shrink government because it's so wasteful.

I pay property taxes and get a range of local government services, including a "transfer station" for disposing my household trash - even hazardous materials, building materials, mattresses and TV set disposal is easy there. They have many types of recycling going on, like metals, plastics, paper, glass, food cans and wood.

I could press to "shrink government" by insisting on a tax cut. The government would withdraw some of its services, and the private economy would benefit by taking up the opportunity and creating a service, and jobs. My mother didn't have access to a Transfer Station in Washington state. She had to use a private trash removal company, who charged $3.50 for each can. No mattresses or TVs or building materials or motor oil or antifreeze... these had to be taken to a different place with bigger disposal costs.

We pay one way or the other. The Transfer Station employs people, who pay taxes of their own. With the town-sponsored Transfer Station to make trash disposal convenient and well controlled, no trash burning is going on here like next door to Mom's. So the neighborhood is safer, cleaner and looks better than at Mom's.

Government services don't work? Then fix them. You're a QA specialist. If you want to see a positive impact, then make one. Don't just moan for tax relief when taxes aren't the real problem anyway.

[True Position]

In Reply to Parent Post by Craig H.

Let's just say transfer payments in general, those included (by far most of the budget).
Funding for the arts.
For the federal government, education (best left to state and local, not in that order).
$300,000 plane trips by Pelosi (cost per when she goes home).

Speaking of that, isn't it strange that while telling the CEOs not to buy or use corporate jets, the fat cats in Washington has a fleet of nice jets for their own use, paid for by us. Delta just isn't good enough, I guess. So, lets include those as well.

Farm subsidies for the mega farms.

The sugar industry protection laws.

That's just off of the top of my head.

Here's the 2009 Federal Budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...get/tables.pdf

Here's a pie chart from Wikipedia with a 2008 Summary:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2007.png

The 'Majority' of the budget go's to Defense, the War on Terror (not considered with Defense), and other major outlays (Medicare, Medicade, Social Security). So please don't say the subsidies like you describe are 'by far most of the budget'.

Some of them should go away, absolutely, but look at where the money really go's. You're attacking straw men.