Middle Class Tax Cuts - DPChallenge Forums

09/26/2004 12:17:33 PM · #26

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
from the daily kos:

The last 30 days provided us with two signature moments that really epitomize the unrelenting desire of the Republican Party to destroy the middle class of this country. First, in late August, the Bush Labor Department torched 60 years of overtime law to enact the biggest middle-class pay cut in American history. And now, in late September, the Republican Congress -- unsatisfied with merely slashing workers' pay -- has raised taxes on the poorest working Americans.*

Congressional negotiators beat back efforts yesterday to expand and preserve tax refunds for poor families...
...So after taking away overtime pay from the people who relied on it to pay for school supplies, the Republicans this week went for the kill. They took away the one piece of tax relief aimed at America's working poor. They raised taxes on the janitors, orderlies, and food workers who make the nation run. The Republican Party raised taxes on the hardest-working Americans, and they didn't bat an eyelash.

That's today's Republican Party in a nutshell, summed up by their own terrible deeds in one terrible month. That's why we fight.

Please, please, provide the "proof" that these statements are true. Show
1) show proof that the updated overtime law actually amounted to the "biggest middle-class pay cut in American history", or that Republicans took "overtime pay from the people who relied on it to pay for school supplies". I will not accept as proof "conclusions" or "projections" - I want real proof from credible sources.
2) show proof that the Republicans "raised taxes on the janitors, orderlies, and food workers who make the nation run". Show us the new tax rates that were passed so that we can verify that they will be higher than the current rates.

Ron

I'll do my best.

1) From the Economic Policy Institute briefing paper: //www.epinet.org/newsroom/releases/03/07/FLSA_final.pdf

2) Expert from the EPI, his testimonmy to congress on the projected impact of the changes:

//www.epinet.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/Overtime_pay_testimony_JB_01202004.pdf

3) The source of the quote "biggest middle -class pay cut" is from House democratic leader nancy Pelosi - part of her press release here:

Pelosi: 'New Overtime Rules Represent Largest Middle-Class Pay Cut in History'
Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on new overtime regulations that the Bush Administration will put into effect on Monday.

"These new regulations represent the largest middle-class pay cut in history - starting Monday, more than 6 million workers will lose their right to overtime pay.

"President Bush and the Republicans simply do not understand that middle-class families need their overtime pay more than ever in this sluggish economy. Workers need overtime pay to put food on the table, to make ends meet, to buy a home, and to send their children to college.

"Millions of workers who are directly affected by the new rule will have to work longer hours for less money. And the impact will be felt by millions more who will no longer have the opportunity to work overtime because their overtime hours will now go to those who are newly exempt from overtime protection.

4) Steve strauss of the Money section of USA Today explains, in English ( non-technical jargon - phew!) here:

//www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/strauss/2004-08-23-overtime_x.htm

5) Table of workers, by category, affected by he regulations, (in thousands). again, by EPI

6) additional breakdown of jobs, by definition, affected by the law. Here you will see that the law affects the working poor - janitors, day care workers, etc that were mentioned in the article cited previously:

//www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/152/bp152.pdf

7) Raising taxes on the poorest Americans - article from Washington Post on the tax bill and it's exclusions:

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43278-2004Sep22.html

Now, I know you want to see hard figures on the ACTUAL impact of these changes. So do I - but of course, they just went into effect, so there is no real data yet.

Nevertheless, the econmic impact of these changes is calculated/predicted by the above analyses.

The scary thing is that the income of the poor and middle class has been eroding over the past decade, DESPITE the fact that these demographics have been working longer hours. Much of that was to earn the extra pay that overtime gave them. Without that extra pay, they will slip behind all the faster.

(I would predict that the 40-hour week will become a thing of the past as well, as there is little pressure now to restrict workers hours. Back to the dark ages, in many ways, I think.

And, to be honest, the cynic in me believes that this is exactly the way the Republicans like wages - as low as possible. Here, I think, is a true difference between the two parties.)

I hope these give you somewhat of what you are looking for, Ron.

09/26/2004 12:41:14 PM · #27

[quote=Jacko] Somehow assuming that the peeps like me who post images in political threads are Republicans. I'm neither. Yeah, great cam :)

Like I said, the pictures come out after someone from the left makes a point, not when someone from the right does.

If I am making an assumption about the political persuasion of the picture-terrorists... well, it seems a pretty fair assumption, don't you think?

Sure, you are Canadian but you have taken sides in this political protest, too, eh? :)

Now, maybe you and all just have a problem with me. I know I can be abrasive, and very....passionate. :D

If that is the case, fine - but take it off line - send me a private message with EXACTLY how you feel, and hopefully, suggestions for my self-improvement. I can take it.

But I think you all have decided that suddenly the Rant section either:

1) no longer should contain political discussion? - who made you all God?
** hey get a ruling from the administrators and be done with it

or

2) belongs to you all as a personal insult board - which it is not supposed to be - please check the Terms of Service

or

3)You just don't give a hoot?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/26/2004 12:46:48 PM · #28

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

09/26/2004 12:47:37 PM · #29

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Like I said, the pictures come out after someone from the left makes a point, not when someone from the right does.

If I am making an assumption about the political persuasion of the picture-terrorists... well, it seems a pretty fair assumption, don't you think?

I can appreciate where so called 'picture-terrorists' are coming from, and that is without any particular thoughts on whether they're making a point against left- or right- wing politics.

I certainly wouldn't take it personally, Roger, and I don't think the intention was to go against one political view and not the other.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/26/2004 01:15:33 PM · #30

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

09/26/2004 01:37:21 PM · #31

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:
1) show proof that the updated overtime law actually amounted to the "biggest middle-class pay cut in American history", or that Republicans took "overtime pay from the people who relied on it to pay for school supplies". I will not accept as proof "conclusions" or "projections" - I want real proof from credible sources.
2) show proof that the Republicans "raised taxes on the janitors, orderlies, and food workers who make the nation run". Show us the new tax rates that were passed so that we can verify that they will be higher than the current rates.

Ron

I'll do my best.

1) From the Economic Policy Institute briefing paper: //www.epinet.org/newsroom/releases/03/07/FLSA_final.pdf

From that Reportâ��s first sentence:

"On March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which, if adopted, could"

â��Couldâ�� is just an opinion, not actual data - as you know.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

2) Expert from the EPI, his testimonmy to congress on the projected impact of the changes:

//www.epinet.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/Overtime_pay_testimony_JB_01202004.pdf

From that report:

"A correct answer to this question is obviously a critical piece of information, perhaps the most critical piece for those entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating the potential impact of the proposal."

The article speaks of a "potential impact" not an actual impact.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

3) The source of the quote "biggest middle -class pay cut" is from House democratic leader nancy Pelosi - part of her press release here:

Pelosi: 'New Overtime Rules Represent Largest Middle-Class Pay Cut in History'
Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on new overtime regulations that the Bush Administration will put into effect on Monday.

"These new regulations represent the largest middle-class pay cut in history - starting Monday, more than 6 million workers will lose their right to overtime pay.

"President Bush and the Republicans simply do not understand that middle-class families need their overtime pay more than ever in this sluggish economy. Workers need overtime pay to put food on the table, to make ends meet, to buy a home, and to send their children to college.

"Millions of workers who are directly affected by the new rule will have to work longer hours for less money. And the impact will be felt by millions more who will no longer have the opportunity to work overtime because their overtime hours will now go to those who are newly exempt from overtime protection.

Thanks for sharing what Nancy Pelosi said. Notice that nothing she says offers any PROOF that what she is saying is TRUE.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

4) Steve strauss of the Money section of USA Today explains, in English ( non-technical jargon - phew!) here:

//www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/strauss/2004-08-23-overtime_x.htm

From Steve Strauss' column:

"I think that with these new regulations, the Bush administration is shortchanging a lot of working people"

"Thinkâ�� is just an opinion, not actual data.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

5) Table of workers, by category, affected by he regulations, (in thousands). again, by EPI
From that table:

â��Source: Authorsâ�� analysis of Current Population Survey data.â��

The article from which that table was taken says:

â��Our estimates are conservative.â��

"Estimatesâ�� are not actual data.

[quote=gingerbaker]6) additional breakdown of jobs, by definition, affected by the law. Here you will see that the law affects the working poor - janitors, day care workers, etc that were mentioned in the article cited previously:

//www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/152/bp152.pdf

From that article:

â��The total effect of the new regulation is undoubtedly greater, but we have been unable to determine the impact of many of the changes with any precision.

"Unable to determine the impact" says it all.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

7) Raising taxes on the poorest Americans - article from Washington Post on the tax bill and it's exclusions:

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43278-2004Sep22.html

From the WP article:

â��The dust-up centers on an obscure provision in the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that Congress passed in 2001. That tax cut expanded the $500-per-child tax credit to $1,000, but it also made another child credit available as a tax refund to some poor families who pay little or no federal income taxesâ��

How is it that reducing a tax â��refundâ�� to someone who pays ZERO TAXES, constitutes a tax INCREASE????? They will STILL pay ZERO taxes.

[quote=gingerbaker]Now, I know you want to see hard figures on the ACTUAL impact of these changes. So do I - but of course, they just went into effect, so there is no real data yet.

Correct. So NONE of what the daily KOS wrote should be stated as though it were FACT. My point, exactly.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Nevertheless, the econmic impact of these changes is calculated/predicted by the above analyses.

Thatâ��s true. But note that the media doesnâ��t PRESENT it as just predictions. They present it as though it were factual.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The scary thing is that the income of the poor and middle class has been eroding over the past decade, DESPITE the fact that these demographics have been working longer hours. Much of that was to earn the extra pay that overtime gave them. Without that extra pay, they will slip behind all the faster.

Hey, the income of the â��upperâ�� class has been eroding over the past decade, too ( with the exception of the chief executives ). And THEY are working longer hours, as well. The difference is that THEY were ALWAYS exempt and NEVER got overtime in the first place. But they DID see their TAX burden go up. And if Kerry is elected, it will go up even more ( "they will slip behind all the faster" ).

Iâ��m sure that the liberals will say that thatâ��s OK, though, because they think that the "upper class" already have â��enoughâ��, even though to get "there" they had to study harder and work harder.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

(I would predict that the 40-hour week will become a thing of the past as well, as there is little pressure now to restrict workers hours. Back to the dark ages, in many ways, I think.

Youâ��re probably right in your assessment of the demise of the 40-hour work week. However, I think that you are wrong about there being â��little pressure now to restrict workersâ�� hoursâ��. There will be reverse pressure by workers who will begin to entertain the introduction of unions in shops that take advantage of the new rules to the detriment of their employees. I think that many employers would rather not have to deal with unions.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And, to be honest, the cynic in me believes that this is exactly the way the Republicans like wages - as low as possible. Here, I think, is a true difference between the two parties.)

I believe that Republicans support free enterprise and capitalism â�� that workers are a resource whose value rises and falls with the market. Too many clerks? Clerical wages fall; not enough nurses? Nurses wages rise. Republicans believe that neither every job, not every individual is worth the same wages. On the other hand, not to be purely driven by money, I feel that Republicans believe in human dignity and the inherent worth of each individual. Every person should be encouraged and enabled to reach their highest potential.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

I hope these give you somewhat of what you are looking for, Ron.

Actually, it gave me NONE of what I was looking for, but EVERYTHING I was expecting. Namely, all of what was said in â��the Daily Kosâ�� was either innuendo, speculation, or quoting someone else who is providing innuendo or speculation. Just more pablum for the masses.

Ron

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

09/26/2004 03:25:14 PM · #32

Bah! The entire Tax system is unfair, for everyone.
Just becuase someone is rich is no reason to make them pay at a higher tax rate. It's downright unamerican. If we are supposed to be equal then lets all pay an equal percentage of what we as individuals earn for ourselves and or our future families. A flat tax is the only fair solution. I am single and every year I end up paying moire in or getting very little back, while I see co-workers with families getting $3,000 plus back... one example is a man in our company that makes $19 an hour and has a wife and 3 kids. They use 4 times as much of our resources as I do, yet they get $3,000 back and I have to pay $500 more? doesn't seem fair to me... but lets say it is... it still doesn't change the fact that it is entirely unfair that someone making $250,000 a year has to pay about 38% in taxs and someone making $20,000 a year pays about half of that... what a crock.. we need a flat tax for all with no forms of tax deduction... everyone pays their fair and equal % share. Most economists say a flat tax of 15% to 17% for all with no deductions would fill our coffers and wipe the debt in 5 years...

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

09/27/2004 04:09:32 AM · #33

Originally posted by Anachronite:

I'd be ok with a flat tax or national sales tax. A national sales tax would tend to penalize people that spend their money frivolously. And it would probably reduce fraudulent reporting of income. Also we can squeeze a little tax money out of the non-residents. Including the illegal ones.

09/27/2004 03:21:45 PM · #34

There is a bill in Congress to do away with the IRS, eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes ( including Social Security and Medicare ), AND be fair ( I think ) to every worker in America. It's called the Fair Tax Act of 2003 and was introduced by Representative John Linder as H.R.25. The bill currently has 54 co-sponsors. Here is the essence of the bill's provisions:

In place of all current federal taxes, the FairTax would place a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Exports and business inputs (i.e. intermediate sales) would not be taxed.

Individuals would file no tax return at all. Businesses would only need to deal with sales tax returns. The IRS and all 20,000 pages of IRS regulations would be abolished.

Under the FairTax, no federal taxes would be withheld from employees' paychecks. Social Security and Medicare would be funded by sales tax revenue.

The FairTax would provide every family with a rebate of the sales tax equal to spending up to the federal poverty level. The rebate would be paid in advance and updated according to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Based on the 2003 guidelines, a family of four would be able to spend $24,240 annually tax free. They would receive a monthly rebate of $465 each and every month ($5,575 annually). Therefore, no family would pay tax on essential goods and services, and middle income families would be effectively exempt from tax on a large portion of their annual spending.

According to Rep. Linder, the current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair. Under the FairTax, all taxpayers would pay the same rate and control their liability through their spending. Tax paid would depend on the individual's chosen life style. Basically, the more you spend, the more tax you pay

More info can be found at FairTax.Org

Regardless of who is elected in November to be President of the U.S. for the next four years, you should write your representatives and urge them to push for, and vote for the FairTax legislation.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 15:22:35.

09/27/2004 03:34:16 PM · #35

09/27/2004 04:05:35 PM · #36

Originally posted by ericlimon:

As the Photographer's comments suggest, there IS something unbalanced about the photo - though, to me, it isn't quite what the Photographer indicates. To me, it seems that mower owner appears to be tilted toward the left.

09/27/2004 04:30:19 PM · #37

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

As the Photographer's comments suggest, there IS something unbalanced about the photo - though, to me, it isn't quite what the Photographer indicates. To me, it seems that mower owner appears to be tilted toward the left.

as with politics, same with photos... the mower is balanced to the left, while the one pushing is obviously on the right.

09/27/2004 05:20:51 PM · #38

09/27/2004 05:36:49 PM · #39

exchange phone numbers

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G ED

09/27/2004 05:48:48 PM · #40

Originally posted by ericlimon:

exchange phone numbers

exchange phone numbers

Left a comment.

DougPaz

Nikon D40

09/27/2004 05:56:15 PM · #41

I recently ran across this article that I think spells out tax cuts VERY well. Take a read and then do your complaining!

Tax break for Dummies?
(This narrative has been somewhat edited in order to allow its publication)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair." "But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would then pay $59. Now the 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. Ok, the first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Then outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system sucks and exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

And that is why you commy democratic socialist are one day going to find yourself all by yourselves, empty, bankrupt and starving!

By: Jimmy Breadwinner

Note: Guess this guy was rather upset and in his opinion told it like it is!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/27/2004 06:03:07 PM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

Well, like I said, there are and will be no data for quite a while.Natch, I didn't think that would satisfy you.

However.

There is such a thing as the burden of proof. When you take away overtime income from millions of poor and middle class workers, it follows pretty logically that their income will go down, not up.

What I provided was a lot of info and data on why the projections of the government seemed way off base, and therefore their economic justifications for the legislation.

Why do you think this legislation will not have a big negative impact on millions of people?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

09/27/2004 06:19:11 PM · #43

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

1) no longer should contain political discussion? - who made you all God?
** hey get a ruling from the administrators and be done with it

I think it is a general consensus that political threads are okay, because this is a community and communities talk about that kind of thing. I do think the bulk of the problem with political rants is that there is so many of them. In all honesty, you (collective you, not individual you)could probably put them all in one or two threads. Instead, we have oodles of threads that all start arguing the same points, with people cross-posting their points in two or three at a time. It would be like having 18 threads talking about NEATIMAGE.

(And please, don't tell me to cut the rants off if I don't like it. I did that for awhile, and now they are "moderated" and since I am on site council, well . . . .I try to pop in occassionally to make sure everyone is behaving). :-)

09/27/2004 06:21:37 PM · #44

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Just becuase someone is rich is no reason to make them pay at a higher tax rate. It's downright unamerican.

How times change. Back in FDR's dayy, the top tax rate was something like 90%! Americans back then thought a progressive tax rate was the esssence of fair play.

I remember reading where FDR, I believe, gave a speech to the effect that there was no good reason in America for a single earner to make more than todays equivalent of $230,000 - that any more was unAmerican, and resulted in someone else being shortchanged.

That said, I think most people hate paying taxes in the U.S. and for good reason - we don't get much for all that we pay. We don't get health care or college education - two things that cost Americans huge amounts of money or can actually devastate a family. Other people in other countries don't have so much to worry about there, for sure. We don't get a public transportation system that works, or much vacation time or other workplace benefits either. How do they manage it in other countries?

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 18:23:03.

09/27/2004 06:25:35 PM · #45

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
1) no longer should contain political discussion? - who made you all God?
** hey get a ruling from the administrators and be done with it

I think it is a general consensus that political threads are okay, because this is a community and communities talk about that kind of thing. I do think the bulk of the problem with political rants is that there is so many of them. In all honesty, you (collective you, not individual you)could probably put them all in one or two threads. Instead, we have oodles of threads that all start arguing the same points, with people cross-posting their points in two or three at a time. It would be like having 18 threads talking about NEATIMAGE.

(And please, don't tell me to cut the rants off if I don't like it. I did that for awhile, and now they are "moderated" and since I am on site council, well . . . .I try to pop in occassionally to make sure everyone is behaving). :-)

Well said, and thank you. :)

I have a feeling that as of the day after the presidential election things will return to normal - more exasperation with challenge scoring! :D

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/27/2004 06:39:13 PM · #46

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

When you take away overtime income from millions of poor and middle class workers, it follows pretty logically that their income will go down, not up.

Other then people that earn over $100,000 (who are not poor or middle class) who are these millions that are losing overtime??? Name some professions.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/27/2004 08:13:42 PM · #47

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
exchange phone numbers

exchange phone numbers

Left a comment.

Careful Ron. Eric's taken the liberty of posting not only his own photos, but the work of others. That picture wasn't his, so its not fair to leave the FairTax comment on it, since it will probably make no sense to Zoomdak. I wonder if Eric thought to get permission from Zoomdak before involving him in this silly little protest...

09/27/2004 08:30:17 PM · #48

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
exchange phone numbers

exchange phone numbers

Left a comment.

Careful Ron. Eric's taken the liberty of posting not only his own photos, but the work of others. That picture wasn't his, so its not fair to leave the FairTax comment on it, since it will probably make no sense to Zoomdak. I wonder if Eric thought to get permission from Zoomdak before involving him in this silly little protest...

maybe ron should not post his politics on other peoples photos period. maybe he should keep it in the rant section, or move to a political site.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/27/2004 08:32:00 PM · #49

Originally posted by ericlimon:

maybe ron should not post his politics on other peoples photos period. maybe he should keep it in the rant section, or move to a political site.

Maybe you should simply ignore threads you don't wish to participate in and not bring other people's photos into your protest.

LoudDog