No, We Aren't 'Stealing From The Poor'

[GURPS]

Liberals have informed me that the GOP tax plan will "take from the poor and give to the rich." Let me state from the start that I am passionately opposed to such a plan. I do not believe that the government should be stealing money from the wallets of our poor and putting it into the bank vaults of the wealthy. In fact, I would find this morally deranged, unsustainable, and criminal. I'll do you one better: a government that enacts this kind of system ought to be violently overthrown.

It's a good thing we don't have that kind of system and we never will.

When liberals claim that the Republican tax plan will "steal from the poor" and "give to the rich" what they mean is that the rich will be getting a tax break and the poor and middle class will not. This is untrue even when phrased correctly. The middle class will, in fact, receive a tax break that isn't any smaller, proportionally, than the break given to "the rich." But let's put that to the side for the moment and examine this notion that we are somehow "giving" to the rich by not taking what is already theirs.

To begin with, we have to establish one thing: rich folks already pay far, far, far more than their fair share of the taxes. The top 1% — Bernie's dreaded millionaires and billionaires — pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86%. The entire bottom half of income earners are responsible for chipping in a whopping 3%. The poor pay no income taxes at all and receive a refund that exceeds the amount withheld.



WALSH: No, We Aren't 'Stealing From The Poor' By Allowing The Rich To Keep More Of Their Own Money

 

[stgislander]

Do you feel like a voice crying in the wilderness?

 

[black dog]

Henny Penny....

 

[GURPS]

Do you feel like a voice crying in the wilderness?

Diogenes the Cynic

 

[transporter]

Liberals have informed me that the GOP tax plan will "take from the poor and give to the rich." Let me state from the start that I am passionately opposed to such a plan. I do not believe that the government should be stealing money from the wallets of our poor and putting it into the bank vaults of the wealthy

.

Actually that is true...the "steal from the poor" part is coming next with the stated intention to scale back Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security...although if CHIP is not funded then you have a quicker link of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

When liberals claim that the Republican tax plan will "steal from the poor" and "give to the rich" what they mean is that the rich will be getting a tax break and the poor and middle class will not. This is untrue even when phrased correctly. The middle class will, in fact, receive a tax break that isn't any smaller, proportionally, than the break given to "the rich."

The tax breaks, at least under the Senate plan-I have not yet read the reconciled plan, will expire for the middle class and poor. The corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts (those are for the uber wealthy) are permanent. So you author is shading things just like the Dems.

But let's put that to the side for the moment and examine this notion that we are somehow "giving" to the rich by not taking what is already theirs.

To begin with, we have to establish one thing: rich folks already pay far, far, far more than their fair share of the taxes. The top 1% — Bernie's dreaded millionaires and billionaires — pay 40% of all federal income taxes.

Yet, they also take in a much larger portion of total income that 40%...have a much larger portion of total wealth than 40%.

The entire bottom half of income earners are responsible for chipping in a whopping 3%. The poor pay no income taxes at all and receive a refund that exceeds the amount withheld.

True...people who have little to no income should not be paying taxes. Oh and since this continually escapes you a large portion of these people are retirees and students.


The bottom line is this and it hasn't change...there is no need for a tax cut at this point in the cycle.

 

[Gilligan]

.there is no need for a tax cut at this point in the cycle.

Yes there is.

 

[GURPS]

Actually that is true...the "steal from the poor" part is coming next with the stated intention to scale back Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security...although if CHIP is not funded then you have a quicker link of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

that MONEY doesn't 'belong' to the poor ....

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Why would you steal from the 99 cent store, you simply can't get that much.

 

[SamSpade]

Actually that is true...the "steal from the poor" part is coming next with the stated intention to scale back Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security...although if CHIP is not funded then you have a quicker link of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

Well, two things. One is, it's not the tax plan, which is what's being accused of doing exactly that.
So - it's just yet another repeating of the same hackneyed crap - steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Who does that, practically?
One of the unusual things we learned in Addis Ababa - the biggest city in Ethiopia - is there's almost no crime.
Nobody has anything. There's no point. You can't take from the poor.

Second - we MUST get entitlements under control, or it will bankrupt us completely.
I don't know what form it will take - obviously tackling Medicaid/Medicare will involve finding SOME way to lower medical costs.
We have to identify where the money is going so we can find the way to do a better job.
SS will require alternative means for everyone to save more of their money, because we can't keep expanding what it covers.
More and more people are living longer, but they either still want to retire at the same age or for whatever reason,
are unable to continue to work effectively into old age. It doesn't help that if you're spent your life as a plumber that
you may live to be 90, but you really can't work your trade until 80, and you certainly can't compete with younger plumbers.

Otherwise, we're left with a very few options - increase the tax - however that is done -
lower benefits - however that is implemented - increase the minimum age - and increase the cap.
I remember a few years ago, Pelosi said they could save SS without doing any of those things -
and within a week said that all of those things probably need to be done.

 

[Rommey]

The tax breaks, at least under the Senate plan-I have not yet read the reconciled plan, will expire for the middle class and poor. The corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts (those are for the uber wealthy) are permanent.

Nothing is permanent. ANY law can be reversed or changed by future Congresses.
Why should there even be an estate tax? Why should the government be entitled to money just because someone died?

Yet, they also take in a much larger portion of total income that 40%...have a much larger portion of total wealth than 40%.

Wealth is not taxed, so that's irrelevant to a tax discussion.

Oh and since this continually escapes you a large portion of these people are retirees and students.

The point being...?

The bottom line is this and it hasn't change[d]...there is no need for a tax cut at this point in the cycle.

Well if you want to pay more, go right ahead. I think most people will likely see a reduction in their taxes (or at least remain the same), so I don't see how that is bad for the average person. There's a concept that you and your ilk have not realized is how tax cuts affect the people, not the government.