U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Odin]

I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?

The rest of your reply comes off as rather childish, okay you think I am anti government, weird, and a dude, I'm not going to get into personal snipeing with you Lemur and my instincts tell me thats where its heading.

However as far as what your not clear on, Im not sure whats confusing. Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

I wont go back through the history here with you Lemur but think Boston Tea party.

Anyway, I appreciate the civil back and forths Im not angry and I dont find you completely out of line in your commentary to me. However I do find it traveling toward a path that might lead to more personal infrences of sanity, charecter and reason. While I am all for that kind of back and forth I am choosing to obstain going forward.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage....

I take your point -- what a difference that possessive makes. Continuing usage of this phraseology could well constitute actionable racism once the user is advised of their error. Ms. Malkin is wrong. My point was that, even if Mrs. Obama HAD used the more objectionable phrasing, playfully, in a moment of exuberance -- and she was introducing her husband at his victory speech as a U.S. Senator -- using it as a means of needling Senator and Mrs. Obama would STILL be tacky, especially after having been advised that the person in question would appreciate that the speaker desist.

People who continue to refer to me as "Jimmy" after I've advised them to call me "Jim" piss me off -- it's rude. On that basis alone, and even if they truly believed the two "daddy" phrases were synonymous (and you've argued well that they would have been aware they are not) FOX should have desisted as a matter of basic courtesy.

Our broadcast media is as uncivil as is far too much of the rest of our culture.


McCain did come out, weakly, in favor of a flat tax (link). However, no specific proposals along this line are noted on his website.

[Redleg]

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?


So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

I removed everything else because I want to address these two comments only. How can the government raise money other then Income Taxes on the wealthy? I must first ask are you really that naive about how the government raises money?

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Treasury Bonds
Tariffs
THe old Sin tax on tobacco and achocal
Custom Fees
Fines for crimes - yes even the Federal Governments issues fines for minor violations of the law.
Tax on Gasoline

There are many ways for the government to tax citizens besides the Income Tax.

So if I feel that those making under 25K should also be taxed at a standard rate, and stated I don't care if they get upset? How whould you respond to that.

One thing about living in the United States is that one has the ability to voice their opinion. As far as taxes are concerned - I am personally in favor of scraping the current Income Tax scheme and going to a flat tax on income. The cost savings alone in getting rid of the bueraracy that is the IRS would be worth paying a slightly higher average tax, within my own tax bracket.

[Lemur]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Class warfare? Please. The graduated income tax is the geneva convention of class warfare.

[Odin]

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, as entertaining as it might be to go on and on with you Lemur, you lack humility and for that matter you insist that others answer you're questions yet choose to ignore others. I can see now why your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite.

And to think I was going to unsubscribe. Tell you what ! I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear (not that thats indicitive of your charecter) and then I'll move on.

Oh, in case your question was serious, didnt you take accounting 101? Dogs dont file returns Lemur...

[Lemur]

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, [...] you lack humility [...] your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite. [...]I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear

Ad hominem much, friend? That's a lot of personal attacks to cram into a response originating from a dog's trust fund. Let's take it to PM if it's going to be all about my personal character defects, shall we? See you in my inbox.

[Ice]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

I'd prefer in perfect theory no income tax.

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).

If we can't have that, I'd accept a less graduated progressive income tax scale. Something like 10%,12%,15%, and 20%. The difference can be made with cuts in spending.

[Xiahou]

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).

No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

[Ice]

No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

That works too. However, I think stuff like student loans, mortgage interest, and charity should stay tax deductible.

[Redleg]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

Any sound fiscial conservative will state that the government should not spend more then what it takes in.

As for taxes - if I was president for a day would be something like this - For all income of a corporate enity 15%, use simple accounting rules - gross income minus expenses = net income which is then taxed. The personel income would be 12.5% of all income above $10,000 for the individual, for families the amount would be $20,000.

After shutting down half of the IRS because they are no longer needed - one might actually begin to see a net gain. Of course if spending remains out of control the personal income tax could be raised a percent or two.


Now if one wishes to do away with the current income tax - the federal government could look at the personal property tax method that many counties use to generate income. I looked at the nationwide sales tax - but I dont think that would work very well for the federal government at all.

So the flat tax - getting rid of the IRS and the current loopholes in the tax laws - seems to be the best reform for our current tax scheme. I favor a base rate of income because those living on minimum wage can barely afford to survive as it is with local and state taxes sapping parts of their income for daily living.

That goes to what programs and spending the government should end - social welfare programs I would leave in the budget, I would just look at reducing the beuraracy and using the state welfare systems also. Foreign aid would be limited to what surplus is in the budget and available after we take care of our own nation first. (Military foreign aid would be the first to go.) Military bases in Europe would be shut down with the troops re-assigned stateside or elsewhere where their presence is required. But I don't see a need for US troops in Europe at this time.

Lots of way to trim the fat off of the government spending - the biggest way is for the President to do his job and Veto any bill that has pork spending included. Take a hard look at farm subsidities (SP) also - removing any that don't make since for economic growth of the nation or to insure that farmers can survive a bad growing season.

Lots of ways for the government to trim the budget - just few politicans are actually willing to do so because of a desire to be re-elected versus actually doing the right thing for the nation.

[LittleGrizzly]

Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

If people just paid for what they wanted, wouldn't you pretty much have what you had know ? except for stuff noone would want to pay towards like.......

[m52nickerson]

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR.

Lets look at some numbers.

Lets say we have Bob. Bob makes $250k per year. Bob pays $3200 per year for health insurance for him and his family. Now under the current tax plan Bob is taxed at 33%.

so

$250,000
- $3200 Since insurance deduction come out pretax
=$246,800 Taxable income.

After taxes = $165,356

That is $3179 take home pay each week. (Yes I know there is SS tax, and other deductions but I'm keep it simple)

Now with the same figures using the 36% tax pre-cuts we get

After taxes = $157,592

That is $3030 take home pay each week.

A difference of $149 per week. Now for someone taking how over 3 Gs a week that is not much at all.

If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR....If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

NOTE: Nick's example was removed to save space in the reply.


Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish."

However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?


BTW, never worry if a political thread morphs into a tax thread -- taxation is at the core of politics and government and any political thread that doesn't address it on some level is probably of lesser value.

[CountArach]

Well turning this back to the election (Though I can see us going off topic a lot before the conventions...) I thought I would post up this article from that liberal hate-machine the New York Times. All I can really say about it is that I am glad that some of the Main-stream Media have seen through the 'Maverick' image that McCain tries to project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

One paragraph I found interesting:

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.

[Lemur]

Here's a good one: Political donations broken down by profession. Note that when you donate money, you fill in a text box for "profession" with anything you like. There's nothing to stop you from writing "bullfighter" or "Manservant of Xenu." Anyway, give it a gander, it's instructive nonetheless. Damn those liberal oncologists!

[LittleGrizzly]

I knew retired voters always came out in force on voting day, but it looks like they put thier money where thier mouth is as well, biggest contributor by profession!

[woad&fangs]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...akes_po_1.html
So, in a room full of investors, bankers, and economists McCain claims he trusts "the peoples" more than the economists when it comes to his gas tax holiday.

[Lemur]

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander, saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

[Don Corleone]

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander, saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.

[Lemur]

Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us.

Don, we have done so for the last five years. Some of the men have been interned for four years or more without even knowing what charges are being levied, and with no legal avenue to find out. It's very Kafka.

Big report out, also, about how our detainee programs has been going. The answers are not pretty.

[Mohammed] Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

[Xiahou]

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.

Since the Eisentrager decision, the courts have had no jurisdiction(including habeas corpus) over enemy prisoners held on foreign soil. This latest SCOTUS decision seems to have knocked this precedent down.

[Don Corleone]

I feel like I may be mired in too many briefings of the Ministry for Public Information myself these days. Okay, I'm really not kidding around or being tongue in cheek here, this really is coming as something of a shock, as I thought I knew the answers to all of this years ago:

-Unlawful enemy combatants. Check. Understand that. They're not POW's, nor are they international criminals. They're a different animal all together.

-No Geneva convention protections, as they're not POW's of a regular army. Understood that too.

-Habeus Corpus: "Show the body". In other words, at some point, regardless of who they are and what they've done, the government has to level some charges at them in some form of an arraignment. Grand juries are reserved for domestic civil courts, but the military courts have some equivalent.

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?



I'm sorry, I really am ignorant. I thought the brou-ha-ha was that the rest of the world didn't like the military tribunals themselves, not that they never actually happened. My God, we are animals.

In reading up on Nuremberg for the Holocaust denier thread, I came across an interesting piece of history. The British and the French and the Russians wanted to take the Nazi leaders out to the woods and just make them disappear. It was the Americans who insisted on the War Crimes Tribunal. We insisted that we weren't savages, that the charges we would bring to bear would withstand scrutiny and justice would be served, and that if we didn't handle it that way, the only difference between us and them would have been luck. It was one of the greatest gifts America has given the world.

And now we've done this.

[Xiahou]

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?

No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can.

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not enjoy such rights.

As the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Guantanamo prisoners, it dealt a new setback for American citizens being held in Iraq. In a unanimous ruling, justices ruled two Americans cannot use the US court system to challenge their transfer into Iraqi military custody.

[Don Corleone]

No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can.

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not enjoy such rights.

I guess the real question is, have they been charged, and have they had their due process? Have they been able to address the charges leveled against them? I'm not saying that it all has to be done in the 9th Lower Manhatten Traffic Court, but a JAG tribunal would be fine, so long as there is some established procedure that has been recorded for posterity and is subject to external review.

We HAVE done all of that you say?

[Xiahou]

We HAVE done all of that you say?

I imagine that a few of them haven't been accused of anything other than being an unlawful combatant. Some are charged with other crimes and are going thru tribunals as outlined by Congress- although it remains to be seen how much, if at all, the latest SCOTUS ruling mucks that up. Many prisoners at Gitmo have been released, some have been released that shouldn't have. There are some that the administration would like to release, but the governments where they hold citizenship won't take them- it's not like we can just drop them back in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, I don't know that full breakdown of who's being released vs who's being tried via tribunal vs how many are still in "limbo". However, my view has always been that not totally unlike POWs, unlawful combatants don't necessarily need to be charged with a specific crime to be held. You can hold them until it's safe to release them. As long as they are given reasonable scrutiny as to whether they are rightly or wrongly captured, I don't see why every one of them needs to be charged with a crime.

Edit: Here's an interesting link where you can read a lot more about who's detained in Gitmo.

[Lemur]

A vendor at the Texas GOP convention goes there. I hope the state GOP cracks down on this sort of not-even-veiled race-baiting. It ain't gonna play well in the general election.

[Don Corleone]

I've heard a few of these pathetic efforts lately, from Democrats and from Republicans.

The first time I heard the Black House "joke", was at a Democratic fundraiser in Denver. There's also the whole Curious George flap down in Florida (the T-shirts). Then just recently, apparently did a skit on TV with sock puppets, and Obama was the monkey puppet.

[PanzerJaeger]

How many times have we seen GWB compared to a chimp? Why can't Obama be compared to Curious George in our colorblind society? The resemblence is uncanny. Now his "baby mama", she really does look like a monkey.

Isn't it kind of the point of Barack's post-racial candidacy to be able to draw human-monkey comparisons to politicians whenever they apply, regardless of race?

[m52nickerson]

Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish."

It may have been a bit over done in calling people greedy or selfish, I've been very angry as of late......I apologize.

However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?

First let me address the issue of charity. Giving to private charities is a very good thing, but the amount of money charities get are in not way guaranteed. Government program while not as efficient and may have funding cut very rarely go away entirely.

There is one main reason why I believe individuals who make more money should be taxed at a higher rate. They can afford it. Higher taxes for someone who makes 250K will not change there quality of life. It will not stop them from buying the things they want. It may not be fair, but it does not hurt them.

Some else I thought of today, I know that is dangerous, a graduated tax code which taxes the wealthy at a higher rate and lessens the amount taken from the Working Class and Poor helps the economy.
"What?", you may say. Taking more from the wealthy will not stop them from buying goods. They will still be able to buy that new car, or new DVD player. Now if we raise taxes on the Working Class or Poor it will affect them more then the Wealthy. The Working Class will not be going out and buying a new DVD or financing that new car. Since the Working Class and Poor are the biggest tax group they have the largest affect on the economy. If we lower there taxes they may be able to afford to but the extras and help keep the economy going. That benefits all classes.

Now in saying that I now longer have the mental faculties needed to argue about taxes.