The tax cuts weren't just for the wealthy though. You're basically just doing the Buffet-rule by only removing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Not going to help much.
Re:Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality
by splinterofchaos on Wednesday May 16, 2012 @06:31PM
(#3984400)
I realize that, but the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the rich, still (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequali...). Low income houses would still pay low taxes, just not no taxes.
Plus, the idea that ending the Bush tax cuts and giving a break to the poor are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. The power exists to do both.
I never implied the rich didn't disproportionately benefit or you couldn't end the Bush tax cuts and help the poor at the same time. However, the net effect of that new tax structure wouldn't help the economy much, and therefore wouldn't help tax revenue.
Re:Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality
by splinterofchaos on Wednesday May 16, 2012 @08:18PM
(#3984753)
You're right. I had misread your post.
This shows tax cuts as the largest cause in our deficit. I won't argue that getting rid of tax cuts will get rid of the deficit, but every tax season, the money lost from these cuts doesn't go towards reducing dept. Worse, the amount lost from cuts grows each season.
"Are they really investments or are they just political favors that over-cost and under-deliver? (See the Department of Education, TARP, Medicare, war, etc.)"
The graph shows that TARP doesn't impact the budget much.