AP POLL: How to pay for health overhaul? Tax the rich

[crazy canuck]

Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

I am not so concerned about capturing more via sales tax.  I am more concerned with simply letting the poor keep what they earn so that they have a greater likelihood of no longer being poor.

[Caliga]

I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

[Josephus]

Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

I am not so concerned about capturing more via sales tax.  I am more concerned with simply letting the poor keep what they earn so that they have a greater likelihood of no longer being poor.

I'm in agreement with you on that. It was Garbon I was having a go at, who was bitching that the rich are getting hosed because they buy a lot of things.

[citizen k]

You guys want to know what a capitalist paradise where the rich are rich and the poor are poor looks like? Take a peek at your neighbors down South.

Where the middle class is growing?

[crazy canuck]

Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

Having experienced both sides of the economic divide I have no problem with giving the poor as many tax breaks as possible.

[Berkut]

What changes is simply the composition of taxes different brackets are subjected to. Rich will pay most in income and investment taxes, poor in sales tax or gas tax and so on.

Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a much greater percentage of their income than the poor. And that's the situation already. Now its going to increase in order to pay for the healthcare plan...

Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

Indeed, the US has followed this strategy, which is why the poor don't pay income taxes anymore. In fact, we send them cash every year instead, so they can spend it on stuff and we can collect more sales tax from them.

It is working out great!

[Josephus]

It is working out great!

That's good to hear

[Berkut]

Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

Having experienced both sides of the economic divide I have no problem with giving the poor as many tax breaks as possible.

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

[Berkut]

I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

Where does this end though? We've been doing this for a rather long time, to the extent that the poor in the US don't pay taxes really at all anymore. In fact, most of them receive tax credits and actually get "refunds" on the taxes they do not pay to begin with. Should we do even more of this?

Of course, we did not do this in some effort to stimulate consumer spending - we did it because the poor needed the money.

[Valmy]

So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Don't most poor people work?  Just saying...

[Josephus]

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

Well, it's kind of silly to tax those, whom, as you say, are "collecting funds from the government" isn't it? Seems awfully beauracratic. "Here's 50 bucks. Now give me back $30."

And here ,I thought I was going to stay out of this debate.

[Berkut]

Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

[Berkut]

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

Well, it's kind of silly to tax those, whom, as you say, are "collecting funds from the government" isn't it? Seems awfully beauracratic. "Here's 50 bucks. Now give me back $30."

And here ,I thought I was going to stay out of this debate.

Of course that would be silly, good thing it isn't done.

You can certainly send them more money though, in the rather bizarre hope that they will spend it, which will somehow increase tax revenues via sales tax!

That is an order of magnitude more ridiculously than Reagans trickle down economics.

[Josephus]

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

That would actually be 19th century London, that Oliver lived in.

But yeah, you made a good point about obesity. I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores, to curb their obesity, which is going to cost the health care system lots in the future.

[Berkut]

So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Don't most poor people work?  Just saying...

I am sure they do - but we are not talking about MOST poor people, we are talking about ALL poor people. And plenty of them do not work, or work very little, or are lazy, or incompetent, or even criminal.

I am MUCH more interested in helping people who actually want to work and succeed, and for whatever reason cannot - but while that stereotype is the one trotted out to justify ever tax credit, they are never targeted at those people, they are targeted at everyone under some income level. Which just incents even more people to not bother with all that work bullshit, since they can make an appreciable portion of their starting salary sucking at the government tit - hell, it can even COST them money to go get an entry level job, since they may not qualify for as much mana from Washington if they actually had an income.

If we want to help the truly disadvantaged, then I am all for programs to spend money on training, education, work programs, etc., etc., etc. I am all for helping people who really want help, rather than just a handout. But we don't do anyone any favors by just spewing out money to subsidize the lazy.

Being poor SHOULD SUCK! it should be a crappy choice. To the extent that it is not a choice (and frankly, I think this is grossly exaggerated, since I come from a rather poor backgrounsd myself), then I am all for giving them that choice through targeted assistance for those who are actually disadvantaged.