AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

You cannot help the poor by tearing down the rich.

So what do you accomplish by narrowing that gap artificially? The poor won't be any richer and the rich will have much less ability to fund new libraries, hospital wings, foundations, etc.; they will have less money to save for others to borrow; they will have less money to invest to help businesses grow, they will have less money for venture capital or to grow/expand their own businesses so that there are more jobs to offer to the poor people, etc. etc. etc.

The only logical way to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor are to implement policies that enable to poor to do what is necessary so that they will become richer. And the best way to do that is to encourage values so that most children are born in a home where a competent mom and dad are present; to offer kids a good education and encourage them to take advantage of it, to discourage gang and other illegal activities, to instill in them the value of waiting until marriage to have kids, of being willing to work at McJobs to get experience, develop a work ethic, develop references, and to learn a marketable trade and manage responsibly so that they will grow their own wealth instead of squandering it.

There is much less disparity between the rich and those who embrace these MAC values.

Disparity Between Rich And Poor Worst Since 1970

Contact: Thompson, Ryan
212 636-6538
[email protected]

NEW YORK � Despite an economic boom that has increased employment and boosted salaries nationwide, the disparity between the rich and poor is at its worst point since 1970, according to the 1999 Index of Social Health, published by Fordham University. According to the report, which gauges the nation's performance in addressing 16 key social problems � including child abuse, health insurance coverage, homelessness and homicides � the poor have suffered under the Clinton Administration. "There is obviously another side to our prosperity," says Marc L. Miringoff, Ph.D., director of Fordham's Institute for Innovation in Social Policy. "While economic growth improved, social health declined. In fact, the gap between them has opened to its widest point in two decades." The study shows that four indicators have reached their worst point since 1970: child abuse, access to food stamps, health insurance coverage and the economic inequality between the rich and poor. The Index of Social Health is the nation's only cumulative measure of the impact of such a broad range of social problems on so many sectors of society. According to the Index, which uses the latest available figures, from 1997, the number of people eligible for food stamps but who don't receive them has grown by 17 percent. The number of uninsured has increased by 5 percent. The overall Index declined by 1.3 percent, to 46 out of a possible 100. "This is only the second time since 1970 that four indicators have hit their lowest point in the same year," says Miringoff. "After a relatively good performance in the past few years, this is a discouraging sign." Founded in 1841, Fordham University is New York City's Jesuit university. It has residential campuses in the north Bronx and Manhattan, and academic centers in Tarry-town and Armonk, N.Y.
http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/archives/archive_191.asp

Bush’s Tax Cuts for the “Rich” Actually Favor the Poor
By Meg | May 13, 2008

It really bugs me when people in the media and (increasingly) in everyday conversation insist on mentioning Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.” People throw that phrase around a LOT (usually as evidence that Republicans are evil and Democrats are pure goodness), but I’ve found that few actually have any idea what tax cuts they are referring to and what taxes were like before the infamous cuts.

To be honest, I didn’t either. So I did some research; allow me to enlighten those brave souls who insist on arguing about such matters at cocktail parties.

In 2001 and 2003, President George W Bush signed into law various tax cuts. I’d like to quote the following from a May 2008 Kiplinger magazine article by Knight Kiplinger entitled “Fuzzy Tax Talk:”

Those laws slashed tax bills of low- and middle-income families, sometimes down to zero for those with several children (each of whom is now worth a $1,000 tax credit). The percentage declines for upper-income people were much smaller; but in terms of actual dollar amounts, the wealthy received the bulk of the savings because they pay the most income taxes.

Specifically, with regard to the wealthy, Bush lowered the marginal tax rates for those with incomes over $350,000 (the top tax rate, admittedly on the rich) from 40% to 35%. He also approved the lowering of the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% (which helps everyone who owns stock, real estate, or any other sell-able asset, but admittedly most benefits the wealthiest members of society since they own more of those assets).

That’s what he did for the “rich.” But he also lowered every OTHER tax bracket (from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) and added other of tax credits and breaks for the “poor” such as the child care tax credit, AMT, and earned income tax credit. The following data is taken from the articleBush’s Tax Cuts Are Unfair…:

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you’ve had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. Surprised? I bet not; you’re wondering about the other cuts - the ones on dividends, capital gains, and inheritance taxes that allegedly skew gains to the rich. Well lets add all those changes in, along with all the other Bush tax breaks such as the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the AMT, etc.:

The biggest percentage tax cut"about 17.6 percent"went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

[Click the article above for a chart of this data.]

Here’s the real kicker. The data shows that the tax code has gotten even MORE progressive since Bush took office (skewed so the richer pay a bigger percentage of their income to taxes than the poorer), and that kind of change is really hard to undo. But federal spending dramatically increased as well; eventually (soon and very soon) Americans are going to have to pay for that. Taxes will rise again no matter who next takes office.

And when they do they’ll rise according to the more progressive model. All three candidates want to leave the low and middle income tax breaks alone - the debate is only over by how much to raise the taxes on the “rich” (the highest tax rate, capital gains tax, and estate tax) and where to draw the classification line for “rich.” They used to pay only 33 times more than the average taxpayer; thanks to Bush it’s now 38 times more. Wonder where it’ll end…
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/13/bushs-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-actually-favor-the-poor/

In the year 2001, the Index of Social Health dropped 8 points to 46 out of a possible 100. This represents the steepest decline in a single year since 1982. Nine of the sixteen indicators grew worse, the most since 1981

Well said BigTex and welcome to the thread.