Talk:Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

From the article: "It is interesting to note that in a progressive tax system like that in the United States, the lion's share of taxes are paid by the wealthiest, and that by definition, almost any tax cut must reduce the most the dollar amount of taxes that the wealthy pay."

Taxes are almost never analyzed in absolute value terms, but rather as a percentage or proportion of of one's income. This is a specious counterargument, and is misleading when it conflates progressive tax systems (based on increasing proportional taxation with income) with real dollar amounts that the wealthy would pay. An NPOV alternative should discuss the actual impact on proportional tax rates of this Act, because only the most extremely progressive tax cut could possibly reduce low-income taxes by more dollars than high-income taxes. Nonuthin 14:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Therefore the fact noted is correct. Facts are not POV by definition. By what definition could you call a fact you concede as correct 'specious'? However, the phrase lion's share should be removed to avoid POV though. By the way, if you want to get into POV, the most common criticism of the tax cut is that the largest dollar amount of it goes to the wealthy. The fact stated in the article is simply to answer that criticism, with as you mentioned, that it is nearly impossible to avoid the above in any tax cut. - Taxman 17:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Referencing this fact (that more taxes are paid by the wealthy) makes a straw-man argument of the criticism that the tax cut made tax codes less progressive, thus themselves being regressive tax cuts. It's like answering your neighbor's complaint "Your dog poops on my yard" by saying that all dogs poop. Hope that clarifies a bit. BTW, the reason I haven't changed it to anything better is because I don't have sources specifically proving that the tax cuts are progressive or regressive. But the argument against them is as described. Nonuthin 04:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the article to be more self-consistent. A line relating opponents' criticisms of the tax cuts stating Bush has turned a record surplus into a record deficit has more to do with President Bush's overall policies than with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 and so I removed this line. I also added the necessary language to change the supposition that the tax cuts have reduced economic recession into an NPOV statement of what may have been. Finally, I added the final line which notes that based on what was said earlier in the article it is unlikely the tax cuts have had any real impact on the most recent economic recession. - Dwee

The part stating this does not take into account the fact that the middle classes and the poor also pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, and these have not been reduced under the current administration is incorrect. The payroll taxes may be a fair complaint, but there is no federal sales tax, so indeed the middle classes and the poor do not in fact pay sales taxes to the federal government. They may pay them to state and local governments, but that's completely unrelated to what the federal tax code is like, and in any case Bush has no power to change state or local sales taxes. --Delirium 03:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)