Did Bush "redistribute the wealth" up in his tax system?

[TheresNoMoney]

The wealthiest few percent got a disproportionate amount of the tax cuts under George W. Bush. Doesn't this mean that money was taken from the less wealthy and redistributed to the wealthiest?

Was this "reverse socialism"?

[Alcon]

No, he was ending its redistribution in the future.  Your theory doesn't really make sense unless it was a retroactive tax cut.

[Ronnie]

No, because the bottom 50% hardly paid any taxes under the Bush administration:

[War on Want]

No, because the bottom 50% hardly paid any taxes under the Bush administration:

So you want them too pay as much as the rich?

I understand your point but I kinda want to know your personal views on taxes.

[TheresNoMoney]

No, he was ending its redistribution in the future.

Huh?

  Your theory doesn't really make sense unless it was a retroactive tax cut.

The Republican's argue that anytime the less wealthy got a bigger tax cut than the wealthy, it's "socialism".  Now why doesn't that theory hold true the other way around? When the wealthy get a disproportionate tax cut, doesn't that mean that the government is redistributing wealth up to them from the people beneath them?

[Alcon]

No, he was ending its redistribution in the future.

Huh?

  Your theory doesn't really make sense unless it was a retroactive tax cut.

The Republican's argue that anytime the less wealthy got a bigger tax cut than the wealthy, it's "socialism".  Now why doesn't that theory hold true the other way around? When the wealthy get a disproportionate tax cut, doesn't that mean that the government is redistributing wealth up to them from the people beneath them?

What's huh?  He is rolling back redistribution, by cutting the taxes of those who pay disproportionate shares.  If "socialism" is defined as "taxing those who have to give to those who don't" (a dumb definition but relevant here), then he's decreasing that.

I think calling anything that makes an income tax more progressive "socialism" is stupid (we're a hybrid nation, if that's socialist, we're already socialist), but your argument doesn't make much sense.

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I believe taxes should be cut across the board.  While I do not believe there should be a flat tax, lower taxes in general would be really nice.  The notion, though, that the "middle class" has been paying endless income taxes is foolhardy at best.

Spending has been going out of control as well, so we should reduce useless government programs along with cutting taxes.

[TheresNoMoney]

What's huh?

I didn't understand what you meant by that sentence.

He is rolling back redistribution, by cutting the taxes of those who pay disproportionate shares.

You don't quite understand my point. I meant that the wealthy got a disproportionate share of Bush's tax cuts in relation to their wealth. Let's break it down (these are not exact numbers by the way):

1) The richest 5% own 95% of the nation's wealth and only pay 65% of the nation's taxes (already unfair because their share of the taxes is a lesser proportion than their collective wealth)
2) That same richest's 5% got a greater percentage tax cut under Bush than the lower 95%

This is what I mean by "reverse socialism". Because they received a disproportionate share of the Bush tax cut, in effect, wealth has been redistributed up to them. Hopefully I did an OK job explaining this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Your argument makes no sense. He was reversing redistributing the wealth, but the rich actually paid a higher percentage of taxes during the Bush years than the Clinton years.

No, because the bottom 50% hardly paid any taxes under the Bush administration:

So you want them too pay as much as the rich?

I understand your point but I kinda want to know your personal views on taxes.

Taxes should be more uniform rather than having the top pay almost all of the taxes. I do believe in a progressive system, but not in the way you and your socialist buddies do, where ideally the rich would pay 70% in taxes and everyone else would pay nothing.

[memphis]

No, because the bottom 50% hardly paid any taxes under the Bush administration:

No. Income taxes are not the only taxes people pay. Income tax happens to be the most progressive. Lower income people pay a far higher percent of Social Security, Medicare, Sales, Property, etc. taxes.

[War on Want]

Your argument makes no sense. He was reversing redistributing the wealth, but the rich actually paid a higher percentage of taxes during the Bush years than the Clinton years.

No, because the bottom 50% hardly paid any taxes under the Bush administration:

So you want them too pay as much as the rich?

I understand your point but I kinda want to know your personal views on taxes.

Taxes should be more uniform rather than having the top pay almost all of the taxes. I do believe in a progressive system, but not in the way you and your socialist buddies do, where ideally the rich would pay 70% in taxes and everyone else would pay nothing.

You know there are other taxes besides the income tax right...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All tax systems, and all government spending, redistributes wealth to some extent or other. That's the whole point.

Was this "reverse socialism"?

You can't have reverse Socialism. I mean, would you say "reverse liberalism" or "reverse conservatism" or whatever?

[TheresNoMoney]

All tax systems, and all government spending, redistributes wealth to some extent or other. That's the whole point.

You're right, and on one says a word when the government redistributes wealth to the wealthiest few percent (which is quite common). Very sad.

You can't have reverse Socialism. I mean, would you say "reverse liberalism" or "reverse conservatism" or whatever?

I think you know what I meant!  I couldn't think of a better term.

[Torie]

With tax credits, the bottom 50% already pay a negative income tax, or close to it. I don't mind that much. What I find kind of amusing, is the notion that raising taxes on the rich will be very relevant. It won't be, and in fact, except at the margins, won't be done at all. Obama isn't going to have any money! He's BK as to his promises even before being elected. I would not like to be him, when the chickens come home to roost as it were. Thanks Rev Wright for reminding me of that cliche.

[Ronnie]

No. Income taxes are not the only taxes people pay. Income tax happens to be the most progressive. Lower income people pay a far higher percent of Social Security, Medicare, Sales, Property, etc. taxes.

Obama proposes huge amounts of new taxes in fields such as corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and most of the ones you listed.  Hiking corporate and capital gains taxes result in no other than lost jobs.  Case and point.

When Obama says "tax the rich and give to the middle class (ie. wealth redistribution)", I feel as if he is referring to income taxes.  No?

[Alcon]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  That's less socialism.  That is disproportionately affects the poor relative to the past state isn't really relative.  "Socialism" is judged by the overall tax rate, not by the latest tax action.  One is holistic, the other is instance-specific.

[Alcon]

corporal taxes

eek!

Sounds painful

[TheresNoMoney]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Unless you mean redistribution of the wealth going up to the wealthiest few percent?

[Torie]

No. Income taxes are not the only taxes people pay. Income tax happens to be the most progressive. Lower income people pay a far higher percent of Social Security, Medicare, Sales, Property, etc. taxes.

Obama proposes huge amounts of new taxes in fields such as corporal taxes, capital gains taxes, and most of the ones you listed.  Hiking corporal and capital gains taxes result in no other than lost jobs.  Case and point.

When Obama says "tax the rich and give to the middle class (ie. wealth redistribution)", I feel as if he is referring to income taxes.  No?

Obama never suggested increasing the corporate marginal tax rate. His cap gains and other tax increases are now rather Bambi like. Don't you love cute does?

[Ronnie]

corporal taxes

eek!

Sounds painful

Corporate, excuse me.

[Alcon]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Because they are able to get out through loopholes, or because the rich should naturally pay higher taxes?

[Ronnie]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Unless you mean redistribution of the wealth going up to the wealthiest few percent?

The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes.  That's not fair share enough for you?

[TheresNoMoney]

Because they are able to get out through loopholes, or because the rich should naturally pay higher taxes?

Neither.

A truly fair progressive tax system would tax all classes at roughly their share of the nation's income/wealth. So if the top 5% in America own 90% of the nation's wealth, then they should pay roughly 90% of the nation's tax burden.

The top 5% pay much less in federal taxes than their share of the nation's wealth.

[Alcon]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Unless you mean redistribution of the wealth going up to the wealthiest few percent?

The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes.  That's not fair share enough for you?

That statistic doesn't seem inherently very helpful to me, because it doesn't tell you what % of their income they're paying.

[Alcon]

A truly fair progressive tax system would tax all classes at roughly their share of the nation's income/wealth.

So if the top 5% in America own 90% of the nation's wealth, then they should pay roughly 90% of the nation's tax burden.

The top 5% pay much less in federal taxes than their share of the nation's wealth.

But, we already have a progressive income tax, so how are they getting out of that?