It's simple, taxes must either increase substantially or we must spend a lot less...

if i had enough money to make you disappear, i'd consider myself rich, just sayin

 

To whom are you addressing your lament, or to the board in general?

 

What is the importance to you of whether a person is considered "rich"?

We need to increase taxes as we do need to have a more balanced budget eventually. It is cruel and or stupid to try to balance budgets on the backs of the sick, poor or on kids as the Repubs propose.

It is stupid to worry about the budget inbalance with a recession going on. Repubs are just trying Disaster Capitalism style to use the downturn to do things on their wish list like end social security, Medicare, teacher and public sector unions etc.

See my other post. We need somewhat increases for folks making 250 K, bigger increases for those making $500 k much bigger increases for those making $1 million and huge increases for those making tens of millions and more per yr.

Are all rich people bad? No? Are most of the corporate elite who dominate politics, control media info, run banks that are too big too fail evil per se as individuals ? No not all of them. Is what they are doing to maximize their corporate profits wrong from the viewpoint of society at large? Yes, all too often.

 

I am just curious because you seem to keep arguing against the "rich"...just wondering if you can define what you mean by that.

 

You don't define "rich" as a point, it's a graduated degree. That's why you have graduated tax brackets.

I don't think any of you freepers really need an explanation of that but:

When a man making $400 a week gets a $1000 tax bill, his family doesn't eat as well, may skip health care, risks losing their housing etc.

When a man making $4000 a week get's a $10,000 tax bill, his family may take a less expensive vacation.

When a man making $400,000 a week gets a million dollar tax bill, his family won't even notice.

The impact on their real lives are different.

 

We may need to do more spend more responsible and tax more. The truth is tax cuts got us in this mess.

 

then you get the amazing logic from the nutters that if scenario 3 is real, why would they want to even make 400k a week?

 

This is precisely why we freepers want a change in the tax codes. As they currently stand, there are definitely inequities in the tax system. Tax breaks are so abundant as to be abusive. GladiatorRowdy likes the value added tax because it is based on consumption. I like the graduated flat tax because it rises with income attained yet does not penalize the poor.

For example, under a graduated flat tax that person making $400 per week (or $20,800 per year) would pay zero income tax. Under a value added tax that person would have paid tax on everything from bread to bedclothes. At $400,000 per week, that person would have been paying $100,000 per week (assuming a maximum top tax rate of just 25%). There would be no tax shelters to serve as a figurative mattress.

 

how is he arguing against the rich? he is arguing that we need to increase taxes on people who can afford them to balance the budget instead of stripping programs that help people in need.

 

I like the graduated flat tax, too. It is good to see that you don't seem to support the old canard of the completley flat tax which is often sold to the gullible eating low on the food chain.

We can agree as long as the tax schedule is progressive like it used to be before the myth of supply side and that low tax rates led to more tax revenue led to the deficits that we now have.

 

What is a graduated flat tax? The entire premise behind the flat tax concept is that it's NOT a progressive tax - there is one and only one rate, with maybe an exemption for the first $x of income.

 

a joke

 

Question is, why did $400 a week guy have a family he can't support and get a mortgage he can't pay?

 

Yeah, I got confused by that too.

Graduated tax = progressively higher tax rates based on level of income.

Somebody dun goofed.

 

I think it's best to do both, seriously cut down on social programs and not allow so many tax loopholes for the super wealthy and big business corporations.

 

Good for you. I simply don't think you deserve deductions for taking on debt. You could also save a lot of money if you just bought your house for a lower price, that is if the government wasn't providing realtors and bankers with all these "selling points" that only help to inflate prices.

I just fail to see how this is cherry picking data. UK and Canada have the same if not higher home ownership rates than the US without the same promotion of home ownership from their government. What else is there?

Yeah, I'm sure after the housing crash economists are going to be more supportive of policies that help inflate housing prices and encourage taking on debt. The only thing that's changed is people are even more skeptical of housing and it's supposed benefits.

Well, that's the crux of argument. I don't think encouragement of home ownership gives back to the economy near what the government puts in. It's also seems completely lopsided to what the government puts in to other industries.

I have no idea what you're basing this on considering there are several variables that you'd have to analyze before making that claim. You do realize that just because a monthly rent payment might be less than a monthly mortgage payment, it doesn't necessarily mean it's better to rent? Especially if you stay in that house a long period of time.

The NY Times has a great Buy vs. Rent calculator that tries to take all the variables into consideration, but even many of those variables are guesses for the future.

Anyway, I don't think your claim is true, but if it were that would just make me more determined that a change is needed. Basically you're saying the whole housing industry is dependent on government support. I have no idea why the government should have that big of a role in housing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1341.html

Above is a link from 2006 about who claimed the MID. There are a lotof home owners who do not even get the mortgage interest deduction. Are you saying all these people are losing money by owning a home as opposed to renting. Who the hell is telling these people to buy? Only 50% of people making 54-75 k even claim the mortgage interest deduction. As you go into lower income brackets that percentage becomes even less. As you go higher it gets up to 78% of people claiming the mortgage interest deduction. This is just another deduction that benefits the rich more than anyone else, and everyone else ends up having to pay for it.

 

To be fair, there are a number of reasons that I like the idea of a consumption tax to replace our current tax code...

• Balance the budget in perpetuity without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
• Effectively tax rich people more while giving anti-tax folks a way to avoid most federal taxation if they wish
• Make the tax code reward savings rather than encouraging consumption
• The infrastructure and reporting requirements already exist and wouldn't add any more burden to corporations. With the elimination of the various forms of income tax, it will make accounting MUCH easier for most corporations.
• Keeps government spending transparent and visible if the base tax rate is set on last year's spending.
• Reduces or eliminates the regressive nature of sales taxes by exempting medicine, food, and the first $XXXX dollars of each individual's spending.

 

I think what he is talking about is removing all of the various exemptions and loopholes in the tax code. Basically, reduce the tax code to the brackets with no additional information needed. No business exemptions, writing down losses, sales tax exemptions, educational credits, dependent credits, etc.

 

Thanks. That's a short, sweet explanation of my tax solution. I wish I had more time today to elaborate, but I am swamped.

 

So, a semi-progressive flatter tax system?