The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Semantics...build food stamps into our tax code and problem solved. Next?

Via payroll deductions, a la FICA and Medicare? Fine. Then I want recipients to work for their benefits. That's more compromise right there than Congress and the White House have been able to gin up in months.

Until US law changes, that's your opinion and not that of society.

Listen, I am all for improving our approach to food stamps, etc. But that doesn't mean that the affluent are above similar scrutiny.

The affluent aren't spending taxpayer money. Food stamp recipients are. And I think the majority of Americans would echo my sentiments with regards to welfare programs.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The affluent aren't spending taxpayer money.

*cough*bullshiat*cough*

Just because it isn't explicit doesn't mean the affluent don't benefit as much or more than the poor from government services.

 

[duper]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Giving tax loopholes that obviously can only be afforded by the extremely wealthy is a form of allowing the wealthy to spend taxpayer money. If those loopholes didn't exist, there would be more tax money. Because some guy gets to write off the interest on his boat loan because he makes the BS claim that it's a second home, everyone else has to pay more taxes. Frankly, why would the interest on a second home be a valid tax write-off? If you can afford more than one home, why the f do you need a break from the government?

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If I didn't know better, I'd swear Kepler was implying that people's opposition to government welfare programs somehow implies that these heretics lack civic virtue.

While I cannot speak for all of them, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that programs such as the food stamps one are horrible as they currently exist. Subsidizing meals for the poor is one thing, but subsidizing junk food consumption is quite another - and is insulting to the taxpayers funding these programs. A simple idea: allow food stamps to be redeemed ONLY for certain types of food, and cut some sort of bulk discount deal with the stores via the guaranteed sales they'd get for this more limited assortment of goods that food stamps can buy.

If local food shelves can get discounted food for buying in bulk, surely the food stamp program can secure a similar deal on a national scale.

This. WIC has requirement, or used to. that requires the vouchers to be used for certain foods only. They also require the parent to submit paperwork showing they are compliant with medical care (monitoring wt, growth curve, anemia) and to be counseled on nutrition. That is a worthwhile program. Focused, educating the people to promote healthy outcome. I wish they would do that for all the programs.

co-pay for food stamps again. maybe less red-tape eligibility requirements etc... Not sure why we changed it to "free" in 1977, but that sounds like a compromise solution that might make everyone happy>?

Lots of quotes that disappear when quoted

Nice post. Liked the old rules better!

Giving tax loopholes that obviously can only be afforded by the extremely wealthy is a form of allowing the wealthy to spend taxpayer money. If those loopholes didn't exist, there would be more tax money. Because some guy gets to write off the interest on his boat loan because he makes the BS claim that it's a second home, everyone else has to pay more taxes. Frankly, why would the interest on a second home be a valid tax write-off? If you can afford more than one home, why the f do you need a break from the government?

Cos if you don't then the housing bubble would burst?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The affluent aren't spending taxpayer money.

This is such BS every BS detector on this board went on tilt.

Whereas social benefits such as “welfare” are paid in the form of checks, “tax breaks function by allowing recipients themselves simply to keep more money, reducing the amount they would otherwise owe,” observes Suzanne Mettler in the current issue of The Washington Monthly.

“As a matter of budgeting, however, there is no difference between a tax break and a social program: both have to be paid for, either by raising tax rates or by adding to the deficit,” Mettler points out.

In short, “In the case of social tax expenditures…the most expensive of these subsidies shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans,” writes Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University and author of “The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy,” coming this fall from University of Chicago Press.

And while the number of welfare recipients has shrunk since the 1996 “reforms,” (meaning many of the poorest of the poor have been lopped off the rolls,) the number of the affluent cashing in on tax breaks has soared. “Over the past few decades, while many standard social benefits have atrophied in real value, those packaged as ‘tax expenditures’…have flourished, growing rapidly in value and number,” Mettler asserts.

“These tax expenditures for individuals and families represented 7.4 percent of GDP in 2008, up from 4.2 percent in 1976. By way of comparison, Social Security amounted to 4.3 percent of GDP in 2008; Medicare and Medicaid, 4.1 percent,” she added.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25933

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

*cough*bullshiat*cough*

Just because it isn't explicit doesn't mean the affluent don't benefit as much or more than the poor from government services.

This is such BS every BS detector on this board went on tilt.

So essentially, you're arguing that allowing people to keep their money is a "government service" or a "subsidy".

This is a classic socialist take on property rights if I ever saw one. Answer me this: Are the fruits of one's labor their own, or do they belong to the state?

I understand that you're both stating that tax cuts/breaks must be paid for. However, you're getting dangerously close to considering a person's paycheck to be government property.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So essentially, you're arguing that allowing people to keep their money is a "government service" or a "subsidy".

This is a classic socialist take on property rights if I ever saw one. Answer me this: Are the fruits of one's labor their own, or do they belong to the state?

I understand that you're both stating that tax cuts/breaks must be paid for. However, you're getting dangerously close to considering a person's paycheck to be government property.

BS.

Companies don't operate in a vacuum. And NO I'm not stating that. You want to eliminate the social safety net I'm fine with that. Always have been. BUT, the 15% or so I pay in payroll taxes PLUS the percentage I pay in income taxes better add up to the same percentage that the hedge fund manager pays in taxes on his entire income. And it doesn't. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So essentially, you're arguing that allowing people to keep their money is a "government service" or a "subsidy".

This is a classic socialist take on property rights if I ever saw one. Answer me this: Are the fruits of one's labor their own, or do they belong to the state?

I understand that you're both stating that tax cuts/breaks must be paid for. However, you're getting dangerously close to considering a person's paycheck to be government property.

No, I'm talking about public roads, medicare and social security, a functioning court system, pork projects that are the result of campaign contributions, etc.

Tax breaks and the like play a role, but even if we talk about pure spending, the affluent get plenty of taxpayer money to spend on themselves.

To answer your question: the fruits of one's labor are their own, but the state gets to take its share for providing a stable society and services which allow you to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Now answer me this: Are taxes merely a cost of doing business, or are they theft?

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So essentially, you're arguing that allowing people to keep their money is a "government service" or a "subsidy".

This is a classic socialist take on property rights if I ever saw one. Answer me this: Are the fruits of one's labor their own, or do they belong to the state?

I understand that you're both stating that tax cuts/breaks must be paid for. However, you're getting dangerously close to considering a person's paycheck to be government property.

The point is that the wealthy benefit from government spending as much as anyone else. Every tax break is a form of government spending, the government is forgoing some of the tax revenue that they would have otherwise had. If your taxes before any deductions and credits would have been X, and after it is Y, the difference between X and Y is government spending. No different than if the government had taken X in taxes and sent you back a check so that you net tax is Y.

Just because you are not getting a check from the government, doesn't mean that you are not spending taxpayer money: Some times it is in the form of a direct payment from the government, other times it is in the indirect form of uncollected potential tax revenues based from credits and deductions.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

BUT, the 15% or so I pay in payroll taxes PLUS the percentage I pay in income taxes better add up to the same percentage that the hedge fund manager pays in taxes on his entire income. And it doesn't. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

...except that even if the hedge fund manager is paying a slightly lower percentage of income than you are, s/he is paying far more money to the government than you ever will. In fact, a single year of taxes from one of those people might exceed what you pay in over the course of a decade.

But go ahead, continue whining and b*tching about fairness. If things of this nature bother you that much, you must lead some horrendously bitter and depressing existence; life is full of inequities like this one, and none of them are likely to ever disappear. But hey, look on the bright side: you were fortunate enough to be born in a country that has good indoor plumbing so that the typical content of your posts can easily be flushed away.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

BS.

Companies don't operate in a vacuum. And NO I'm not stating that. You want to eliminate the social safety net I'm fine with that. Always have been. BUT, the 15% or so I pay in payroll taxes PLUS the percentage I pay in income taxes better add up to the same percentage that the hedge fund manager pays in taxes on his entire income. And it doesn't. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

You may want to keep in mind the 35% that the company paid in taxes on the income prior to being districuted to stock holders and their 15% tax as well. Also remember that assets held less than one year is taxed at regular income tax rates.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

...except that even if the hedge fund manager is paying a slightly lower percentage of income than you are, s/he is paying far more money to the government than you ever will. In fact, a single year of taxes from one of those people might exceed what you pay in over the course of a decade.

So? Are you saying that, were taxes to be raised, that the billionaire hedge fund manager would trade places with the $50k/year public school teacher simply because then he'd pay less taxes?

Regardless of the nominal sum, it's horrible tax policy for a billionaire to pay less, as a percentage, than the middle class or slightly rich.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You may want to keep in mind the 35% that the company paid in taxes on the income prior to being districuted to stock holders and their 15% tax as well. Also remember that assets held less than one year is taxed at regular income tax rates.

Not necessarily. GE paid 0 in corporate income taxes. Try again.

...except that even if the hedge fund manager is paying a slightly lower percentage of income than you are, s/he is paying far more money to the government than you ever will. In fact, a single year of taxes from one of those people might exceed what you pay in over the course of a decade.

But go ahead, continue whining and b*tching about fairness. If things of this nature bother you that much, you must lead some horrendously bitter and depressing existence; life is full of inequities like this one, and none of them are likely to ever disappear. But hey, look on the bright side: you were fortunate enough to be born in a country that has good indoor plumbing so that the typical content of your posts can easily be flushed away.

I'm well aware of how unfair life is, so don't worry about me. It's not the inequity that bothers me. It's the complete lack of awareness in this country that the inequity exists that bothers me.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So? Are you saying that, were taxes to be raised, that the billionaire hedge fund manager would trade places with the $50k/year public school teacher simply because then he'd pay less taxes?

Regardless of the nominal sum, it's horrible tax policy for a billionaire to pay less, as a percentage, than the middle class or slightly rich.

Except for the fact that we want (and need) to encourage investment in this country.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Not necessarily. GE paid 0 in corporate income taxes. Try again.

Nice exception. Now can we talk about the rule

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Nice exception. Now can we talk about the rule

I pay double taxation as well. Anything that you think the rich do I can cite the same example for the average taxpayer.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I pay double taxation as well. Anything that you think the rich do I can cite the same example for the average taxpayer.

Then why are you complaining? You're getting the exact same treatment as them.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Then why are you complaining? You're getting the exact same treatment as them.

Wrong. I have 15% pulled out of my income before I even see it. Then I pay income tax on it.

Hedge Fund manager doesn't.

You think Buffett is lying when he says he pays a lower percentage than his secretary?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So? Are you saying that, were taxes to be raised, that the billionaire hedge fund manager would trade places with the $50k/year public school teacher simply because then he'd pay less taxes?

Nice try, and no that is not what I'm saying. I'm merely laughing at Scooby's angst over the percentage of income paid to the government by different people. It's unlikely to change without significant tax reform which itself is unlikely to happen anytime soon due to the votes and campaign contributions that it's netting the incumbents.

Regardless of the nominal sum, it's horrible tax policy for a billionaire to pay less, as a percentage, than the middle class or slightly rich.

Our government has horrible policies? Surely you jest.

And scoobs, if ignorance bothers you, you're going to be miserable for life. People wear ignorance like a security blanket.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Wrong. I have 15% pulled out of my income before I even see it. Then I pay income tax on it.

Hedge Fund manager doesn't.

You think Buffett is lying when he says he pays a lower percentage than his secretary?

First of all. Its utterly false that the Hedge Fund manager doesn't pay FICA taxes. He is part of a company and the company is forced to pay those taxes. Just like small business owners are.

Buffet could pay himself a salary and it would be taxed at a far higher rate. As someone who owns Birkshire Hathaway stock I'm glad that he doesn't since its a greater incentive for him to increase the stock returns. Think about this. It the stock doesn't go up how much does Buffet make? $0

As has been discussed before. I have no problem with a flat tax and you've seemed open to it. Do realize though that the "rich" will actually wind up paying less in taxes if we go to that.