An response to the Republican false-promise of lower taxes

[yesthattom]

The "Birth Tax" -- Every child born today owes $36,000 towards paying off the deflict Bush created.

Every time a Republican mentions lower taxes during a political debate the Democrat should respond, "Well, I know what tax I'm against! The birth tax! Every child born today will have to pay $36,000 to cover their share of the Republican-created budget problem. Republicans talk a lot about this kind of thing but the only President to balance the budget in 50 years was a Democrat."

Comments

[mrrules.livejournal.com]

The problem with this sound bite is that, whilst it may be technically accurate (I'm certainly not going to argue with the figure), it is of no relevance to the average joe; they do not perceive national debt as in any way relevant to their lives -- *they* do not have to pay it.

Of more relevance is tax cuts -- money they take home that otherwise went to the government. More beer they can by that week. (I'm reminded of the definition of "intaxication": that euphoric feeling you get when you receive a tax refund... right up until you realise it was your money all along.)

Australia just returned the little man Howard in the last election. Mainly because he ran a fear campaign on interest rates and scared the mortgage belt into ignoring every other policy and failing, and focussing solely on their self-interest.

When it comes to the polling booth, the back pocket and self-interest with a 1 to 2 year horizon is as far as they see. And that's the way the Republicans (and Liberals in AU) want it.

-g.

[ntang.livejournal.com]

Y'know, there's some real truth to that. I was talking to a coworker the other day, and he was talking about how he wanted to adjust his dependents/ withholdings to get a bigger tax refund. He was talking about how nice it was being able to count on getting that nice infusion of cash every year. I pointed out that if he had a smaller tax refund it'd mean he was getting more money in his pocket in *every paycheck*, and that he could pay off his debt faster and put his money into savings faster, getting more bang for his buck, and it took him several minutes of back and forth before what I was saying started to sink in. It had never occurred to him (and he's not a stupid guy!) that maybe a big tax refund wasn't the greatest thing ever.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

furthermore, a tax refund is just an interest-free loan to the government. And that is just silly.

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

I must say, having gotten a federal tax refund this year for the first time I can remember, it really was awfully nice not having to send in a large check this year.

I knew I was going to get a refund, since we didn't change our withholding even though our income was reduced by 50%, thus landing us in a lower tax bracket. But I decided to just let it be, rather than trying to figure out what the optimum amount of withholding would be.

Anyway, while I certainly agree with your argument in theory, I think many people aren't very good at implementing the "pay yourself first" method of saving on their own. You have only to look at the pitiful state of most people's retirement savings accounts, emergency funds, etc. to know this. People have a tendency to fritter away an extra $25 or $50 in their paychecks, while if they receive a lump sum of $1000 once a year, they might do something with more long-term benefit with the money.

So for many people, the choice isn't so much between having the money throughout the year and using it to pay off their debts, save, etc., but rather between having it throughout the year and using it to buy a daily latte at Starbucks, vs. getting it once a year and saving it for the future.

Personally, I think I'm somewhere in the middle between the two approaches -- my only debt is my (quite reasonable) mortgage, and I save a substantial percentage of my income using the "pay yourself first" method. But I'm also probably going to let the government keep a little money again this year and refund it to me later. My finances are tight enough right now that if I do have access to the money, I'm likely to work a little less hard at figuring out cheap ways to feed my family.

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

As stated, I shall restate slightly.

The 'Birth tax' does not require a check. No one has to sign on the bottom line and have there face rubbed in it. No one is directly focused on the trade offs of servicing the debt or getting granny her medication.


The average american has something like $8,000 in credit card debt. The principal does not matter to us, or to George Bush jr. (quote "There just a bunch of IOUs." talking about well... everything, same person that said "It's just a piece of paper" refereing to the constitution.) So no, the principal, though large and shocking never gets on the pay_in_the_amount_of line. Thus it's all funny money and lies. Just like housing prices.


One step away from the pay_in_the_amount of line is the _withholding_ line on the standard paystub. Most people don't know what it is, they may know there weekly pay down to the penny, but they don't know anything about there tax rate beyond "it's a lot". If $32k is how much debt a child brings to the family, then servicing that debt is about $1600 / year.... or $60 / bi weekly paycheck. For an child going into the workforce now, that's maybe a day of labor? 1/10th there labor going to service the debt. (though taxes are non linear... so the math realy donsn't work out that good.). But $60 / paycheck, or $120 a month is something that people can get there mind around. It's a free cell phone, free internet, free phones, free cable.... for everyone. Though maybe that won't be a long term problem.. (thanks google). To others that's the electric bill every month. For a town of 10,000, maybe it's a the 16 Million dollars/year needed for a new school, park or old folks home.


Right now the debt is seen as a big externalized cost, no one has to pay it, so it dosn't matter. The debt servicing, no one needs to write a check to pay, so similarly the only people who notice are policy wonks, or nose bleed level government.


That average american is however rather very understanding that the check to Visa every month is rather hurtful, and it does get in the way of doing things. In a related vein, taxes. Small businessmen, conservatives and republicans harp on tax day, the day of the year % wise that there percentage taxes are paid. I forget what they call it. But the idea is that up until that day you have been working for the government, after that day you are 'free'. That is something that is always there, every year, and get stuck in peoples craw.


Start breaking about 1/3 of taxes go to servicing the debt. What day is that in the year? Everything before that is spent in service to whoever owns Tbills.

Debt clocks are nice : http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

Maybe we need a debt calender.

January - February is Tbill months, broken down into
Weeks and days for large holders of Tbills.

March-April is the spring of our discontent... I mean defense!
The navy can have a few weeks the army can have a few weeks, etc.

Some day in May could be the day (or whatever it really is) devoted to
head start, you know helping the children.

Maybe around june we can have a month of medicare.

Some time around july 4th we should have (however long it is), the black time, when the black budgets gets funded (NSA, GSA, TIA, etc).

There are loads of possibilities.


Here is a funny idea. Maybe by 2050, we could have the government working for us. Alaskans do not pay state taxes, they get a check every year in the mail. Wouldn't that be nice? Instead of having a national debt, maybe we need a national balance. A balance the size of our debt could pay for our military, no more schools or bombers debates. Or imagine that town of 10,000 just getting a check for $16 Million every year. This year it might be a new school addition, next year a new old folks home, war memorial, VA outreach center, park or recreation center for the kids in the winter months. Let's all get together and help truly build an ownership society.



I ramble... I'm sorry if you felt your time wasted.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I really like that last paragraph!

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

The bit about rambling and wasting time or the national balance?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

The national balance.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

So we should drastically cut programs? Be careful not to end up doing Grover Norquist's bidding when you use that argument.

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

Grover Norquists bidding is not that we optionally cut programs. Grover Norquists bidding is that we are forced to cut programs.

The difference is subtle, but it is about initiative and results.

If I decide not to eat lunch, maybe because i'm getting tubby, I'll choose the right lunch to skip, and I'll skip it only when there is not something important coming up before dinner.

If I must skip lunch because I have no money (Norquists tough love plan), then even though I may have something important coming in the afternoon, I'll be less prepared for it _with no option_ of being prepared for it.

One day, and one day soon we'll have to take a long hard look at the choice between, guns for killing (whoever), or drugs for our elderly. I'd be nice if we were not actively getting shot at, and if our elderly were in generally good health. It looks like we are not going to be so fortunate.

It's about framing

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

It's an accurate figure, and more importantly, if the Democrats keep saying it enough, people will believe it. The image of each child born $36,000 in the hole, when it's not even their fault, is powerful. That's a lot of money to most people (it's a lot of money to me, certainly.)

Also, this explains why Republicans are pro-life. More babies to spread out the debt.

Re: It's about framing

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

It's also a Big Scaaary Nuuuumber. That makes for good sound bytes.

Sure, most people don't understand all those tax laws. However, the majority of the voters don't understand why saying "Gosh, I should increase my withholding because I love a big refund" isn't very smart.

About 15 years ago I saw a Republican politician giving a lecture on CSPAN in front of an audience of other Republican politicians. He said that when he's in public he only talks about issues that 80% of the American public agrees. He is silent all other times. Sure that means Republicans will be silent a lot, but they're certainly enough Democrats who will speak up on unpopular issues. The Republicans, he proffered, would still act on the other issues but not publicly. It's freakin' briliant. No wonder people think Democrats aren't worth listening to.