National Council of Churches leader reflects on "State of the Union": "Tax Cuts for Millionaires"

"The President didn’t say it, but the country knows it: The union is in a state of great uneasiness. Many people are uncomfortable with a national priority that provides major tax cuts for millionaires and pays for them with funds that ought to go to help children without health care insurance, children who can’t get into Head Start, children whose families live on the edge all the time.

"Other Americans wonder why the President insists on escalating the national debt, saddling their children and grandchildren with an obligation that threatens the well-being of generations to come, just so a relative handful of wealthy Americans can add to their list of luxuries.

"The creation of a national department for homeland security does little for our sense of safety when the President fails to fund its budget, and when local communities cannot adequately fund their police, firefighters and hospitals.

"We should all be concerned about the tone of the President’s war rhetoric. Americans are right to be uneasy about the morality of a pre-emptive American invasion that, even with extreme care on our part, could kill a staggering number of innocent civilians.

The World Health Organization estimates that as many as half a million casualties would result from such a war, and UNICEF warns that 3 million people would be threatened with starvation.

"Just as unsettling, a unilateral American assault on Iraq would surely trigger a massive growth in anti-American terrorism that would make our homeland far less secure.

Counting those costs, our common sense tells us there must be a better way than war. Our faith compels us to search for that better way. "

At the risk of being as repetitive as the Council of Churches:

1) Since the wealthy pay the vast proportion of income taxes, then any broad tax cut will benefit the wealthy.

2) Many Democrats and virtually all Republicans already voted for these tax cuts. Recycled class warfare arguments against tax cuts that have already passed do not address the main feature under discussion: speeding them up.

3) The majority of American families have dividend income on their tax forms. The majority of Americans should not be taxed twice on their money, even if the Council of Churches inaccurately believes they are a wealthy few.

4) Doesn't separation of Church and State mean the Council of Churches should tend to souls, not tax bills?

I remember when the National Council of Churches knew what it was talking about and did what it did best. I remember when they took the pennies that children donated in Sunday school and gave them to the African National Congress so the ANC could buy guns to kill other Africans and hire enforcers to murder those who disputed the ANC.

I have to assume that the NCC is using those stolen coins to fund terror in the US, probably Seattle and SFO. And, BTW, isn't the NCC a 501(C)(3) organization and, as such, prohibited from taking positions of political advocacy?

The NCC should stick to murder, something it knows about, and leave propaganda to the other America-hating commies.

I'm sorry, but I have to get this off my chest -- and the sacriligious NCC is certainly a great place to dump upon:

I'm sick of this "tax cuts for millionaires" mantra. We have a progressive tax system that, by its very definition, STICKS IT to the rich every single day!

Everyone seems to know that someone making a million per year (gee, how many of those are out there, anyway??) would get $89,000+ of tax relief under this plan. Nobody bothers to mention that this is balanced against the fact that such people would routinely pay over $500,000 to their federal, state, and local governments in taxes.

These taxes are paid to organizations that are unprofitable, inefficient, and malfeasant in their use of those funds. So who's a better spending of money: government or the private sector? The private sector creates wealth and jobs, the government creates a dependent class under the guise of "helping the needs". Who benefits more and contributes to society? Somebody who has a job or somebody getting a handout? Obviously the job holder.

So now we need tax cuts to reverse the damage done over the years. Since we have a progrssive tax system, then by definition (again), the more rich will gain more dollar benefits since they're being STUCK more often. But as it turns out, the Bush plan actually ends up making the tax system MORE progressive than before. So who's really getting the breaks, NCC -- you who pay no taxes??

Such self-righteous babble disgusts me, for it is based on feelings neither substance nor fact. If you're getting a free lunch, then stop complaining about the salad.

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week - a very liberal college professor - and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.

"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the Professor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason they'd get more money back."

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.

So I said to him, "Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:"

"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100."

"If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, The first four men paid nothing; The fifth paid $1; The sixth paid $3; The seventh $7; The eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) paid $59."

"The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve."

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.""

Now, dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divide up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so now:

Along with the first four, the fifth man paid nothing, The sixth pitched in $2, The seventh paid $5, The eighth paid $9, The ninth paid $12, Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up.

The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys, girls and college professors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

Funny thing. The Conservative Republicans understand this but somehow the Liberal Democrats just don't get it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.