Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

what's everybody thinking about the VAT?

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Nearly half of Americans paid no income tax

This is unsustainable. When a tax increase doesn't affect half of the electorate of course they will be in favor of it. That is why I feel that any tax increase should be applied to everyone (ideally Fair or Flat Tax).

Did you even read the article ?

I believe it was Bush and republicans who pushed the child tax credits and rising deductions/exemptions or cost of living adjustment means that if you make less than $25000/yr per person with a kid, you might not pay the $1500 federal taxes due to child credits of ($1000/per kid).

I'm not sure how flat tax will solve this problem... unless you decide there will be no deductions/exemptions for anything. And I believe the number (50%) is similar for corporations not paying taxes because they had losses, capital writeoffs or other tax credits.

The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

what's everybody thinking about the VAT?

My gut reaction is don't want it. I haven't seen any numbers from VAT in europe or how it's working out.. but I have to agree with fiscal conservatives, government will not cut spending if they get another tax "resource".

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Will it take California or NY to bring the movement to the tipping point???

Yes most likely that is exactly what it would take.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

what's everybody thinking about the VAT?

It sucks. It's as regressive as a traditional sales tax, it's hidden from the public more than a sales tax, and it will make it easier for the government to spend money.

That said, it's probably an inevitability for all the reasons stated above.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

My gut reaction is don't want it. I haven't seen any numbers from VAT in europe or how it's working out.. but I have to agree with fiscal conservatives, government will not cut spending if they get another tax "resource".

Here's an article from the London Telegraph on the VAT
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...-a-done-deal-despite-the-governments-denials/

I would prefer a flat tax with an elimination of the income tax to the VAT.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

we're gonna need it to pay for healthcare. I wish it would replace income tax. but sadly, that won't happen.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

we're gonna need it to pay for healthcare. I wish it would replace income tax. but sadly, that won't happen.

The country needs to decide what it wants. Lots of government programs and high taxes, or low taxes and less government intervention.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

It sucks. It's as regressive as a traditional sales tax, it's hidden from the public more than a sales tax, and it will make it easier for the government to spend money.

That said, it's probably an inevitability for all the reasons stated above.

wherein people remember that democrats are more about the appearance and feeling of doing good more than actually doing good. I think the threat of the VAT is extortion for other means of a tax... but if they need to do it they'll look to go for it.

The problem is still that the government wants to spend more than it has. Example: Obamacare.

At no point in any of these exercises have we discussed means of cutting costs other than stripping down the military. We can't keep lying to ourselves about how much we spend especially as people keep calling for more things that we "ought to do to be good to our society"... being good costs money... a whole lot of money... which we don't have!

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Did you even read the article ?

I believe it was Bush and republicans who pushed the child tax credits and rising deductions/exemptions or cost of living adjustment means that if you make less than $25000/yr per person with a kid, you might not pay the $1500 federal taxes due to child credits of ($1000/per kid).

I'm not sure how flat tax will solve this problem... unless you decide there will be no deductions/exemptions for anything. And I believe the number (50%) is similar for corporations not paying taxes because they had losses, capital writeoffs or other tax credits.

I don't doubt the math means people get paid to live here. And I am less concerned about who passed what...it is still wrong, in my opinion, to have that kid of structure. You all can focus on which party holds more responsibility...more distraction from the real truth...and see how far that gets us.

One difference between the corporation and the individual...I suspect the corporations employ a few more people than the individuals do. Should a state grant tax reductions to an employer to keep jobs in their state? I can at least understand that reasoning...the state would have to pay unemployment, businesses would suffer, housing values decrease etc. I can understand why a state would say they want the company to stay. I can also understand why the country would want a company to keep its plants in the US.

I can understand why some % of the public should pay no net taxes...but I can't understand why we'd pay people to live here.

And I really can't understand how they could ***** about somebody else getting their taxes cut from 35 to 33%...that is where we are as a society, 40% of the people get paid to live here AND ***** about those who do pay taxes not paying enough.

If you think that policy is in the best interest of this country then I beg to differ.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

It sucks. It's as regressive as a traditional sales tax, it's hidden from the public more than a sales tax, and it will make it easier for the government to spend money.

That said, it's probably an inevitability for all the reasons stated above.

I think it's more "regressive" to use income taxes to effectively punish success in the higher brackets, while the bottom half gets a free ride.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I think it's more "regressive" to use income taxes to effectively punish success in the higher brackets, while the bottom half gets a free ride.

snark aside, in an well-functioning society one does have to look at the capacity to pay in regards to resources beyond maintenance at least as a general concept. This doesn't mean that every dollar above what it takes to feed and cloth a man should belong to the government... but at the same time I think there's something to be said in affordability. The VAT will go after every single item purchased by people. Whom is that going to hurt more?

The reality is that a new style of tax is easier for some to push because of the newness of it and this one in particular since they can claim that the businesses will pay for it. People forget that without spending there is no business. Yeah, they're faceless, yes, the people who run them are often amoral scumbags. Does doesn't change that you look at it we will pay for it because businesses who can't pay for it will just go out of business and that will raise costs on top of the tax.

I think the powers-that-be see this as an easier item to pass because they can push on the moralism angle... which they can't seem to tease out by raising income taxes. I have to think the powers-that-be believe that they can get a 5% VAT tax easier than they can get a 1% income tax.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

and the govt gets the VAT everytime there is a good or service purchased. not just when the final consumer buys.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

wherein people remember that democrats are more about the appearance and feeling of doing good more than actually doing good. I think the threat of the VAT is extortion for other means of a tax... but if they need to do it they'll look to go for it.

The problem is still that the government wants to spend more than it has. Example: Obamacare.

At no point in any of these exercises have we discussed means of cutting costs other than stripping down the military. We can't keep lying to ourselves about how much we spend especially as people keep calling for more things that we "ought to do to be good to our society"... being good costs money... a whole lot of money... which we don't have!

Well, we could increase revenue and decrease waste by collecting taxes that aren't paid, not spending $98 billion a year in eroneous government payments and putting somebody in charge of reducing fraud in all government programs. Those changes wouldn't hurt anybody except those who are cheating the rest of us.

Now, while some would suggest a government agency to do that work, they'd have no incentive to succeed. Tell companies they can keep 1% of what they collect and you'd have employment, revenue and a change in the practices.

Hire Microsoft to automate all immigration and citizenship processes and eliminate the personal interviews, stacks of paper and multiple years it takes to become a citizen. Take that department and cut it by 50%. Charge a fee to become a citizen...not too much, maybe $250 and pay Microsoft $100 for each person.

I would eliminate Nasa, loved Apollo 13, we don't have the money right now to do that kind of stuff.

Merge the branches of the military, including the academies and reduce the redundancy. Eliminate all military bands...we don't need the navy steel drum band.

Force everybody to use Quicken for their taxes and reduce the IRS.

Don't fill another federal job for two years and force them to deal with the vacancy.

Sell 25% of the federal buildings in DC as the vacancy opens up space.

End farm subsidies.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Minor change: you need 38 states (3/4) after 2/3 of H&S for a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified.

Did you read my post? If 2/3rds of the states (34 states) call for a Constitutional Convention, they can form one and raise amendments at that time, bypassing the House and the Senate.

Amendments, regardless of their origin, must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states(38 states).

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Yes, it is. For any real legitimacy, an Amendment would have to be broadly framed as to the question of federalism - and, as noted, that's a much different task, and a completely different ask for those 34 states to sign on to...

Isn't that what the 10th amendment tried to address?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I think it's more "regressive" to use income taxes to effectively punish success in the higher brackets, while the bottom half gets a free ride.

Because a person making $40,000/year spends all or nearly all of it on simply living - food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc.

A person making $400,000 has money to save and spend on luxuries.

So long as we're not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (and we're not), I'd still rather be the person making $400,000 and paying higher taxes than the person making $40,000 and not paying any income tax.

Also, the EITC does not pay people simply for living here. It pays people for working here(hence, the "earned income" part of the EITC). It's an incentive to get off the welfare rolls and contribute to society.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

AP says Stupak will retire. Wonder what country he'll get an ambassadorship to?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

So long as we're not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (and we're not), I'd still rather be the person making $400,000 and paying higher taxes than the person making $40,000 and not paying any income tax.

The question is what gives the gov't the right to more of that person's income? What additional benefit are they getting?

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

AP says Stupak will retire. Wonder what country he'll get an ambassadorship to?

the UP.