The title of my thread is actually the conclusion that Slate came to. Do you guys think it's a valid one?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may or may not be related, but which states have the highest deficits or largest debts? Many of those states that may appear "self sufficient" may actually need/use the same amount of money, but do so on a "borrowed" system.
It may not be related.
Also the change in those has been very very small in the 8 year period accross the board.
And as hinted at, many tax spenditures have to do with demographics as well. Indian Reservations are all federally funded, Military Bases, States using "No Child Left Behind" vs. those not accepting it.
And I think unfortunately, that Florida's spending may go "up" as well as New Yorks due to Hurricanes, and 9/11.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This year, a record 44 million tax returns – one-third of all returns filed – will have no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the tax code. This is a 50 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just four years. In addition to these zero-tax filers is 14 million individuals or households who do not earn enough to file a tax return. Overall, some 58 million taxable households are outside of the income tax system.
These findings raise some serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system. Are any future tax cuts, or even tax reforms, possible when the lion’s share of the tax burden is increasingly borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers who – at least on paper – appear to be "upper-income"? And will the expanding pool of non-payers demand even higher income taxes? These are questions lawmakers must begin to debate.
So, what we have here is a Republican president who is causing higher earners to pay *more* of the tax burden than his predecessors. This is interesting in light of the common complaint by many fiscal conservatives that those who make the most money pay an unfair share of the tax burden, and rebuts the idea that Bush hates poor people or something.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxon, come on. The amount of people who are rich enough to fall into a high tax bracket and ethical or clueless enough not to disguise the fact decreased under Bush, is what that says. This doesn't mean he made the tax code more progressive.
I've heard that Red/Blue analysis in previous years, and it's nice rhetoric, at least. They used a variant in West Wing to good effect. I don't think it means anything really, but the moral it suggests is that conservatives often don't realize how much they benefit from the federal government. Something random along those lines that just came up in conversation was the idea that everyone's health will improve if poor people get free, or discounted, healthcare, because it would strengthen our "national immune system" or something like that.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
