Quote:
|
Originally posted by KMA-628 If your tax rate went down, then you benefited from the tax cuts.
|
Except now I pay more for healthcare and education of my children. How did that benefit me? Well, it's a net balance for me. Not for everyone. Certainly not for those who are not already making a substantially comfortable living. I count myself among the lucky in that regard. And I have no problem paying taxes
as long as the money is spent responsibly on something worthwhile.
That's really the issue. Massive tax cuts don't help the people that are struggling. If you want to argue that the government should not help these people, fine. If you want to assert that giving rich people more money leads to more advantages to the poor (the meat of "trickledown economics"), feel free. I will gladly take up that debate. But to make the blanket statement that getting a refund of
any size is a bonus without offsetting what you
lose in assistance is just dishonest. This rhetorical device used by proponents of the Bush tax cuts is utterly maddening.
The reality is that the tax cuts were directed at the wealthy
who were just as wealthy before the tax cuts. Everyone else gets a pittance and a cut in social program funding to balance the books, and they are supposed to lap this up as a net gain? It seriously boggles me.
Let's stick with the Supply-Side argument that spawned this thread. Your assertion is that by making rich people richer, that they will pass this wealth on to the average worker by raising wages and creating new jobs, instead of hording it jelously and still lobbying for legislation to axe workers safety, rights, and wage regulation. Does that about sum it?