The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm not asking for much, but I'd like to see every American have to file a tax return with a basic tax, call it a "cover charge" or "ante", of $100 per adult.

The 8% off the top that goes to FICA doesn't count?

Even when I was just a part time summer employee in high school and college, I paid more than $100 a year in FICA.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet

And what a shocker, you want to flatten the progressiveness of the tax structure. Why do you hate capitalism?

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Read my quote again: Your precious progressive tax system wouldn't be dismantled, Sparky. It's current brackets would be maintained, and everyone's tax rates raised or lowered by the same amount.....and this would kill the class warfare you so embrace.

Also: I don't listen to Buffet. He got downgraded as well.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Read my quote again: Your precious progressive tax system wouldn't be dismantled, Sparky. It's current brackets would be maintained, and everyone's tax rates raised or lowered by the same amount.....and this would kill the class warfare you so embrace.

Also: I don't listen to Buffet. He got downgraded as well.

An increase in the marginal rate from 5% to 8% is a 60% increase.
An increase in the marginal rate from 35% to 38% is only 8.6%.

A flat, across the board increase would hurt the poor more than the rich. The progressiveness would be lessened, thereby making it less progressive and more regressive by definition. But math has a liberal bias these days, amirite?

As far as not listening to Buffet, I agree. What does the 3rd richest man in the world, and probably the best financial guru since J.P. Morgan, know about economics and finance? Probably nothing.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

An increase in the marginal rate from 5% to 8% is a 60% increase.
An increase in the marginal rate from 35% to 38% is only 8.6%.

A flat, across the board increase would hurt the poor more than the rich. The progressiveness would be lessened, thereby making it less progressive and more regressive by definition. But math has a liberal bias these days, amirite?

That's almost good enough for the Tea Party but I'm guessing what we really want is a 5-10% increase for the poor and a 5% cut for the top marginal rate so they can create some jobs.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

An increase in the marginal rate from 5% to 8% is a 60% increase.
An increase in the marginal rate from 35% to 38% is only 8.6%.

A flat, across the board increase would hurt the poor more than the rich. The progressiveness would be lessened, thereby making it less progressive and more regressive by definition. But math has a liberal bias these days, amirite?

As far as not listening to Buffet, I agree. What does the 3rd richest man in the world, and probably the best financial guru since J.P. Morgan, know about economics and finance? Probably nothing.

3% of $25,000: $750.
3% of $2,500,000: $75,000.

8% of $25,000: $2,000.
38% of $2,500,000: $950,000.

Simple math, no biases. You can spin the numbers any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that in order to kill class warfare in our political system, we need to have everyone taxed--equally or inequally, it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

Buffet is a financial genius when it comes to investing and picking winners. He's an idiot when it comes to fiscal policymaking and talking politics.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

3% of $25,000: $750.
3% of $2,500,000: $75,000.

8% of $25,000: $2,000.
38% of $2,500,000: $950,000.

Simple math, no biases. You can spin the numbers any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that in order to kill class warfare in our political system, we need to have everyone taxed--equally or inequally, it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

Buffet is a financial genius when it comes to investing and picking winners. He's an idiot when it comes to fiscal policymaking and talking politics.

That's additional $750 has more of a marginal value to the person who is making $25k per year than the additional $75k does to the person making $2.5M per year.

Everyone is taxed, just because you don't pay any income tax does not mean that you don't pay any taxes. Anyone who works and therefore has FICA taxes removed from their paycheck has skin in the game, period.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

but it doesn't change the fact that in order to kill class warfare in our political system...

...rich people need to stop pretending they have it rougher than a teacher making $50,000/year.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Everyone is taxed, just because you don't pay any income tax does not mean that you don't pay any taxes. Anyone who works and therefore has FICA taxes removed from their paycheck has skin in the game, period.

I find it sad that the talking points narrative has convinced people that a tax that is levied as a percentage of earned income is not an income tax.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Andrew Mellon knew something about economics and government ...

In 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote: "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing", he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets).

Government income from taxation went up after the reduction.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm not asking for much, but I'd like to see every American have to file a tax return with a basic tax, call it a "cover charge" or "ante", of $100 per adult.

See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4.

Andrew Mellon knew something about economics and government ...

Government income from taxation went up after the reduction.

I think it's reasonably well established that we are nowhere near the inversion point on the Laffer Curve.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I find it sad that the talking points narrative has convinced people that a tax that is levied as a percentage of earned income is not an income tax.

Oh no, that just goes into a trust fund lock box for the day that I'll get it paid back to me ... ... (not holding my breath on that one) ...

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4.

There is a reason I avoided the phrase "head tax".
And people want to revise the Constitution for so many other reasons, why not this one too?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I find it sad that the talking points narrative has convinced people that a tax that is levied as a percentage of earned income is not an income tax.

ROTFLMAO

It's a poor tax cause the rich folks only pay it on their first 100,000 earned. So, IT IS NOT A STRAIGHT PERCENTAGE. You seem to imply that it is.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If you feel like you are undertaxed, no one is stopping anyone from sending more to the IRS.

Have at it.

Me? When I have a $20k outlay to the Feds, $10k outlay to the locals (property), and $10k to the state, and that's not considering the softer, "hidden" taxes and fees like sales tax and all those charges on telecomm bills and so on, I feel like government should be able to scrape by without more from me. Forgive me for not wanting to send more in. I'll make do with less government rather than more coming from me, and that's what I tell the people that represent me.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

There is a reason I avoided the phrase "head tax".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

And people want to revise the Constitution for so many other reasons, why not this one too?

I wouldn't be opposed, there are far worse ideas bouncing around right now. I'm not even completely certain why that provision was written the way it was written.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I wouldn't be opposed, there are far worse ideas bouncing around right now. I'm not even completely certain why that provision was written the way it was written.

I'd need to dig through some old Constitutional notes, but I believe the southern (slave) states had an issue with capitation taxes.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Andrew Mellon knew something about economics and government ...

Government income from taxation went up after the reduction.

It's good that you're looking at the laffer curve article on wikipedia. I very much like the quote from Mellon's book on his page pointing out to give preferential treatment to people who worked to make a living rather than just made investments.

He also didn't mind tax increases.

"I have frequently expressed my opposition in principle to the levying of excessive taxes on estates of decedents," he told Congress sadly. "Notwithstanding the views which I have expressed, I believe that in the existing emergency, estates should contribute some additional revenue to the government."

"I realize," he told lawmakers, "that arguments can be advanced against every increase in rate or additional tax proposed. This is true of all measures looking to an increase in the public revenue. But I trust that on this occasion the attitude of taxpayers will be different from that which, knowing human nature, we would expect under normal circumstances. We are in the midst of a grave emergency. It is essential to raise additional revenue, not just to cover current expenditures but to maintain unimpaired the credit of the United States Government."

Frankly the only thing I think that can be honestly pointed out by Mellon's point of view is that excessive taxation is bad, a progressive structure is better, and taxes are not the end of the world.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Many of the mainstream economists still are followers of Keynes, which means spending and more spending to get yourself out of economic problems, and which is why governments like them. Economists from the Austrian school support major cuts because they say that will help the private sector. i.e. Less government interference with a free market economy. Frankly, I don't think the spending our way out of debt approach is working very well. It certainly makes no sense to me from a private individual (or family) perspective. The Austrian economists say that a growing and expanding private sector will actually produce more revenue to the government.

I don't think the economists were advocating spending their way out. We have debt. Revenue pays down debt. Eventually the expansion would provide more revenue but the thing that confuses me is if you have all those cuts, no increase in revenue how a we in the short term going to decrease debt. Less jobs = les tax revenue, less spending so we go further in the hole. How is this going to help us? When does the result of increased revenue happen?

So why cant we raise taxes to 19% of GDP AND cut spending down to it? Neither alone can fix this but both together can. This doesnt have to be one or the other we can and should do both.

I thought I was the only one not firmly stuck in the tax or cut corner.

If you feel like you are undertaxed, no one is stopping anyone from sending more to the IRS.

Have at it.

Me? When I have a $20k outlay to the Feds, $10k outlay to the locals (property), and $10k to the state, and that's not considering the softer, "hidden" taxes and fees like sales tax and all those charges on telecomm bills and so on, I feel like government should be able to scrape by without more from me. Forgive me for not wanting to send more in. I'll make do with less government rather than more coming from me, and that's what I tell the people that represent me.

This kind of thing always fascinates me. I always wonder if there couldn't be a way that we could have people who don't want to pay into the pot/would rather have less sign a wavier and not access all those perks like police, firefighters, EMS, schools, Soc security, Medicare, subsidized gas prices, food prices, etc. This would make a great reality game on FB like Farmland.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

It's good that you're looking at the laffer curve article on wikipedia.

First place that had the Mellon "73-24" quote I was looking for.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This kind of thing always fascinates me. I always wonder if there couldn't be a way that we could have people who don't want to pay into the pot/would rather have less sign a wavier and not access all those perks like police, firefighters, EMS, schools, Soc security, Medicare, subsidized gas prices, food prices, etc.

There you go jumping to extremes. There are rightful purposes and uses for government. But there are also excesses. I said "less" not "no".

I don't think anyone out there with a straight face can say there's no waste, mispurposing, or graft in government.