The U.S. Tax System

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
profette_IHB

profette_IHB

New member
From the NY Times...

"Regardless of who wins the election this fall, the next president will face at least three wrenching decisions that could reshape the nation’s tax system for years to come..."

20080210_TAXES.jpg
 
I thought that as of late a "budget" was just a formality. It has been a spending fest and will continue to be so. No matter what happens, the next president will get blamed for a bad economy and a disastrous foreign policy. It will take more than 4 years to undo the mess we have now.
 
i hate when loss of potential tax revenue is referred to as a "cost". when the avg person thinks of costs as it pertains to taxes, they're thinking about the left hand side of that presentation. but so often there's talk of what the bush tax cuts costs, what extending it will cost -- and the public goes, "oh no, look at the cost!"

its as if your mortgage company comes to you and tells you they need to raise your mortgage rate. times are tough, banks made some bad investment decisions, and the money they collect from you isn't enough for them to sustain their business and service their debt obligations. there's a great cost if you don't contribute more to help make them whole. and if you don't, you're just selfish and only care about yourself. bleh...

"I can't stand cheap people. It makes me real mad when someone says something like, "Hey, when are you going to pay me that $100 you owe me?" or "Do you have that $50 you borrowed?" Man, quit being so cheap!"

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
 
Here's a novel idea that hasn't been tried in a decade or so... let's try cutting the cost of the federal government and leave the tax rates exactly where they are now.

BTW, I see that it would "cost" twice as much to have a child, 33% more to be married, and 5% more to be poor if the Bush Tax plan expires but only 3%-4.6% more to be single and rich. I thought Dems were all for helping the little guy and middle class families? WTF?
 
It's more than just taxes. What a "poor" person would get back in terms of services in a more left leaning (ie welfare oriented) administration is vastly more expensive than the tax differential. In a way, they'd pay more taxes and get more in return. The view from the right is to cut taxes AND benefits. Poor people would suffer more under that scheme. The prospect of a few bucks in the wallet can make a lot of people vote against their own interests.
 
Not really g_c, as a few bucks in the wallet is all they get from "benefits" and it is all they have ever gotten. With those benefits comes the massive overhead inherent in the Federal Welfare system which increases the need for taxes. Cutting taxes reduces the need for "benefits" and has the added attraction of reducing the tax burden on everyone else, further helping those who work in the service sectors, the manufacturing sectors, and building sectors.
 
To me it seems that social programs such as Medicaid benefit those in the lower/middle class way more than a few bucks in the wallet - and as such the cost to the government is much higher. What I'm arguing is that you can slip by a restriction on eligibility for such a welfare program if paired up with a few bucks in the wallet.
 
But Medicaid, in most cases, is state-run and partially state-funded. Furthermore, medical care is not usually something requires on a monthly basis, especially regarding adults. Of course there are exceptions, but as a rule people are not visiting a doctor monthly. So the benefit is not rewarded to them monthly, whereas their federal taxes are taken from them every paycheck. Unless this hypothetical poor person was chronically ill, they could do more with a larger paycheck than healthcare they never use.
 
Sure, you can argue that about any services you never use - add anything that the government subsidizes on top of that as well. You've got public transportation, libraries, highway maintenance, community college, digital TV conversion box, PBS, public schools, etc. Drop all that and rejoice on the extra $400 in your wallet.
 
$400 is huge, in a lump sum. But it could be more because by reducing the cost of government while leaving the tax rates alone, you can use the savings to pay down the debt, which further reduces the cost of government. Which might, you know, add up to more than $400.

Anyway, this is all off the point of my original comment. Why is it okay to increase taxes on the poorest tax payers by 50%, raise taxes on parents by 50% per child, and tax married citizens at a higher rate than single citizens? Especially when the wealthy single man or woman only faces a 13% increase in their tax rates? Both HRC and BHO want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and then raise taxes on top of that, but it seems obvious that they plan to screw the poor by unfailry raising their tax burden. Isn't that the opposite of what the "progressive" tax scam is supposed to do? Aren't we supposed to be jacking the top rate so that they can pay their fair share and reducing taxes on the little guy because they pay more as a share of their income?

g_c, please don't respond with more Democratic dogma, it's stale, stinky, and to be honest... it's done better by others. On the one hand, you say "I think that if this society gives you benefit of economic success, you owe it back in the form of a higher effective tax rate. Should I be a higher effective tax rate than someone making half as much as I do. By any means! I will gladly bear that burden" and then on the other you deride the difference that small amount can make in that tax bracket, offering up some imagined benefit that seldom applies as justification.

Instead, either answer my direct question or, if that proves impossble, show me the numbers on the amount of taxes collected from the lowest tax braket, the amount of government services they receive averaged per person, and the cost of administration of the programs providing those services.

(As a side note, you make me miss EvaLSeraphim something awful)
 
You show me that it is not the case. Come on, you have to be in denial to say that government services/subsidies seldomly apply. Do your own homework and look up how much you benefit from it. You've got at least one finger so google away.

Last I checked the table, after raising taxes it remained progressive.

Some homework for you ... if you increase taxes from 0% to 5%, how much of an fractional increase is that? Is that the ultimate unfairness of the librul tax scam????
 
I've never understood the logic of having lower tax rates for capital gains than for wages.

My family, as I am sure many of you do as well, enjoy income both from wages and from capital gains each year. The highest marginal rates we paid on what we W2'd was 33%. The highest rate we paid on capital gains was 15%. Thus we paid over double the tax rate on what we earned from working versus what we made from investing. So what irks me is that I had to work my ass off in earn my W2 wages but only had to sit on the couch with the laptop (and sometimes a Scotch) and complete some trades to earn the capital gains. The tax is inversely proportional to the effort to earn the money and it just chaps my hide.
 
g_c, thanks for reconfirming my opinion that you are little more than a troll. I wasn't asking you to do my homework. I was asking you to support your argument with facts, or to answer my question. Instead you try to sidestep the question by posing one that has no relevance at all to the discussion, or even the OP by profette.

HB Bear, I agree, let's switch them around
 
warren buffet often says his secretary pays more in taxes than he does, and personally he doesn't think its right. obviously in dollar terms it couldn't possibly be true, but in percentages terms probably so. one of the most interesting ideas i've ever heard is the an unlimited ira. let people save as much as they want on a pre-tax basis and allow them to benefit from the gains. it'll never get considered because of the immediate "cost" due to less tax revenue but in the long run we prevent entitlement programs from spiraling [more] out of control.

at the end of the day this achieves very much the same as a consumption tax. the current tax system provides no incentive to save.
 
Nude, I've provided as many supporting facts as you have - none. I'm not trying to write an academic paper - just voicing my opinion and trying to gain perspective from others. BTW, you make just as many hand waving arguments as I do.
 
g_c, I asked questions based on the data provided in the OP. You didn't answer the question, but attempted to reframe the discussion using facts not in evidence and then refused to provide links when challenged to support your points, instead asking me to disprove your claims. The onus is on you, buddy, not your opponent. My supporting facts were layed out in the OP, I just did the math.

Put up or shut up.
 
"one of the most interesting ideas i've ever heard is the an unlimited ira. let people save as much as they want on a pre-tax basis and allow them to benefit from the gains."

I have also seen proposals where the government would match your IRA contributions like a company 401K. This would really get people to save...
 
Something needs to happen. The amount of interest that the US is paying each year is nuts! Looking at the proposed FY2008 budget, over $260 Billion is budgeted for net interest. Holy f*cking cow!! When you have to borrow money just to pay interest on the money you're already borrowed, that's a sad state of affairs.
 
On this subject, this is a worthy repost -US Fiscal Tsunami, US Government Government Accountability Office (GAO) Office Comptroller General Dave Walker breaks it down

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top