Quote:
Originally Posted by scaeagles
You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?
|
95% of working families is a subset of 95% of all people and that subset will receive almost all of the benefit. Therefore, the 80% that is true when done for "all people" is actually close to 95% when done for "working families." I'm not sure what you find confusing.
Quote:
|
What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.
|
Fine and irrelevant. Regardless of what the money is used for, sure you agree it is a tax? And that reducing the amount a person pays on said tax a "tax cut"?
Again, you may have a philosophical disagreement on whether this particular tax cut is a good idea (though I didn't know Republicans ever had such philosophical disagreements, though maybe this would be an exception since it favors the working poor over the wealthy who earn more than the payroll tax caps) but you can't really argue it is a tax cut. And it is the central component of the truth in the statement that "95% of working families" -- as opposed to 95% of all people some portion of which do not pay any taxes of any type because they have no reported income -- will receive a tax credit. Every single tax filer earning less than $200,000 will get this $500 or $1000 proposed credit. That is 97% of all filers.
As you can see, we are again running into a wall where you are apparently not speaking the same English language I am. Apparently reducing taxes burdens is only a tax cut when Republicans do it and socialism when other people do it. And redistribution is only redistribution when the money transfer happens in cash.