The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Your obsession with having someone else's work pay for your benefits has always been epic. Again, that 15% actually generates more revenue than a higher rate. Your goal seems to be to raise the rate to punish them for being successful and investing in this country.

That's hilarious.

I pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich guy who makes all his money through capital gains and I'm the one who isn't paying for my own benefits? Awesome.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

This seems to be the crux of the issue today and until we break this pattern we're never going to solve the problem.

Dependency and votes

No. The real problem is the government goes out and spends money on things and doesn't tax for them. Back in the day if you wanted to go to war the government would tax the people to do it. Now you just put it on the credit card.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

That's hilarious.

I pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich guy who makes all his money through capital gains and I'm the one who isn't paying for my own benefits? Awesome.

I've got no problem going to a 15% flat tax across the board if that will make you happy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I've got no problem going to a 15% flat tax across the board if that will make you happy.

I'd be thrilled.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Your obsession with income tax is reaching epic proportions. Capital Gains is 15%. Everyone making real income over 34,000 per year is paying a higher percentage than that.

Nonsense. Last I checked, I make substantially north of $34k, and each year, my total federal income tax bill works out to roughly 17% of my gross income. Marginal tax rate doesn't come close to telling the story. By the time you pile on the mortgage, IRA, dependents, and other deductions, people making $35K a year don't pay anywhere close to 15% of their income in federal income tax.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Everyone except for the fringe knows that the tax rates have to be restored to the 1990's levels (for everyone) and everyone but the fringe (or people who are bad at math) knows that entitlements are going to have to be cut to balance the budget. Unfortunately our leaders in Congress are looking out for the interests of those on the fringe and not the vast majority of people that realize that one solution is not going to fix this problem at the expense of the other.

Restoring tax rates to the "Clinton levels" isn't Socialism. Restoring tax rates to the "Eisenhower levels" still isn't Socialism, but it also won't resolve the deficit. Both sides have to sacrifice.

I'm now disabled. When I get approved I will be on the government dole for Social Security benefits. I'm not looking to unilaterally give up any benefits (which, incidentally, I earned, paid taxes on once and will pay taxes on again) but if it's part of a broad solution I'm willing to sacrifice part of my benefit (read: cash) to solve this crisis. What I'm hearing from the opposite side is that they want me to give up all of my benefit (and do what? Drop dead? Become homeless?) but they aren't willing to give up one Goddamned dime to solve the problem. That makes me angry. That makes me fearful. That makes me less willing to sacrifice my benefits and more likely to support raising the top rate to 50% or more. That makes me want to write a very different letter to Senator Snowe. And now I'm back in that fringe again where this problem started to begin with.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Compromise is not a dirty word. This country was built on compromise (not always admirable, but practical) and it can be saved by compromise again.

This is a great post. I have nothing to add to it (which makes it even more valuable to the Forum. )

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I've got no problem going to a 15% flat tax across the board if that will make you happy.

Isn't that what steve forbes proposed back in the day?

 

[unofan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Nonsense. Last I checked, I make substantially north of $34k, and each year, my total federal income tax bill works out to roughly 17% of my gross income. Marginal tax rate doesn't come close to telling the story. By the time you pile on the mortgage, IRA, dependents, and other deductions, people making $35K a year don't pay anywhere close to 15% of their income in federal income tax.

Do you not think that people earning their income from capital gains take those same deductions?

The point is that they start from a lower point. If those deductions lower your effective rate to 17%, imagine what it does for those who start out at 15%?

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Do you not think that people earning their income from capital gains take those same deductions?

The point is that they start from a lower point. If those deductions lower your effective rate to 17%, imagine what it does for those who start out at 15%?

To echo this statement, imagine what the 15% guys who own million + dollar hedge funds can afford for tax attorneys. If I can read the literature and reduce my overall effective rate with little difficulty, I don’t imagine its any harder for millionaires to drastically reduce their 15% footprint.

 

[unofan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Your obsession with having someone else's work pay for your benefits has always been epic. Again, that 15% actually generates more revenue than a higher rate.

Because clearly the high point of the laffer curve is at 15%...

Prove that, and you'll win a farking Nobel Prize.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I've got no problem going to a 15% flat tax across the board if that will make you happy.

My naive idea for a flat tax has always been a "two number" tax policy.

All money coming in (salary, bonuses, cap gains, all benefits, inheritance, gifts, subsidies, *everything*) would simply be considered "income." There would be no tax advantages for anything -- home mortgage deduction, dependents, business expenses, "investment" tax breaks, etc... all gone. Similarly there would be just one federal income tax. Everything else: payroll tax, cap gains taxes, excise taxes, etc -- gone.

E is a base number of exempt income -- the first E dollars of everyone's income would be untaxed.

R is the tax rate on every dollar of income above E.

The rule would be that you can choose any pair {E, R} as long as the revenue collected would match spending (i.e., a balance budget). An independent, bipartisan organization (say the CBO) would take the year's approved spending and estimates of income and its distribution and from that would figure out the line on the E, R graph where you collect the target revenue. The political fight would then be over where you go on the line: High E, High R for "liberal" preference, Low E, Low R for "conservative" preference. That way the fight would not deepen the debt. Build a small surplus into the target and over time we'd even zero out the debt.

My complete guess is that the line would currently run through points like:

{$0, 25%}
{$25k, 30%}
{$50k, 35%}
{$75k, 40%}
{$100k, 45%}

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Do you not think that people earning their income from capital gains take those same deductions?

The point is that they start from a lower point. If those deductions lower your effective rate to 17%, imagine what it does for those who start out at 15%?

For most of the deductions, substantially less on a percentage basis, since they have a maximum dollar limit or are fixed (per child, etc).

 

[unofan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

On that point. Revenue to the gov't was $1.8T in 2001. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, it is $2.2T. The problem is that in 2001 we spent $2.2T, but now we spend $3.8T

Wait, how did I miss this gem?

Because overall revenue is now 12% higher 10 years later, the bush tax cuts increased revenue? That's what you're basing this **** on?

If there's merely 1.1% inflation per year over those 10 years, the entire "increase" in revenue is wiped out simply by inflation. That also ignores the increase in population during the same time, which would reflect a lowering of the per capita revenue. And those are just the 2 easily recognizable factors.

You are completely full of crap. Thanks for finally providing your numbers to show why.


EDIT: Math fail on my part. 22%, not 12%. Still gets eaten up entirely by inflation of 2%/year, which is pretty standard. The rest of my post stands.

 

[unofan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

For most of the deductions, substantially less on a percentage basis, since they have a maximum dollar limit or are fixed (per child, etc).

Assuming they make millions, sure.

But in the hypothetical where someone makes the equivalent of your salary in unearned income (capital gains, dividends), they'd be paying less in taxes than you.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Why should they be happy to may more for something they use less of? To me the moral thing to do if they make 19% of the income they pay 19% of the taxes (or 20% if you want to exempt the very lowest earners).

Much has been made about going to the previous rates. I certainly hope that those proposing that are saying that everyone would go back because I'll I've seen here is proposals for the "rich" to go back and everyone else staying the same. Back in the 90's we had over 70% of the population paying income tax. We've now got 49%.

Because the top 1% get more out of current system then just direct financial benefits: unless you put no value on keep the roving mobs of starving and homeless people at bay for taking everything else. I suspect that the aristocrats of the old reigme in France would have gladly paid more in taxes if they had know that it would avoid that whole revolution thing and so many of them losing their heads.

Many people have said that we have to remove ALL of the Bush tax cuts, your lack of reading comprehesion doesn't mean that we didn't say it.

Untill you reduce the inequality in income you will not reduce the numbers who pay no taxes.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Still gets eaten up entirely by inflation of 2%/year, which is pretty standard. The rest of my post stands.

No need to be hypothetical about it.

Using constant 2005 dollars, federal revenue decreased during the 2000s from 2.3T to 1.9T.

With the caveat that decades are an arbitrary way of dividing up time,

Going back to WWII, the 2000s were the only decade during which revenue fell.
2000s (-18%)
1990s (+42%)
1980s (+25%)
1970s (+23%)
1960s (+58%)
1950s (+46%)

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Some more drivel for you. The RSC is on the right path to balance the budget without raising taxes (for anyone).

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-12-2011/ryan-s-private-savings---path-to-prosperity'>Ryan's Private Savings - Path to Prosperity</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:381467' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

My naive idea for a flat tax has always been a "two number" tax policy.

All money coming in (salary, bonuses, cap gains, all benefits, inheritance, gifts, subsidies, *everything*) would simply be considered "income." There would be no tax advantages for anything -- home mortgage deduction, dependents, business expenses, "investment" tax breaks, etc... all gone. Similarly there would be just one federal income tax. Everything else: payroll tax, cap gains taxes, excise taxes, etc -- gone.

E is a base number of exempt income -- the first E dollars of everyone's income would be untaxed.

R is the tax rate on every dollar of income above E.

The rule would be that you can choose any pair {E, R} as long as the revenue collected would match spending (i.e., a balance budget). An independent, bipartisan organization (say the CBO) would take the year's approved spending and estimates of income and its distribution and from that would figure out the line on the E, R graph where you collect the target revenue. The political fight would then be over where you go on the line: High E, High R for "liberal" preference, Low E, Low R for "conservative" preference. That way the fight would not deepen the debt. Build a small surplus into the target and over time we'd even zero out the debt.

My complete guess is that the line would currently run through points like:

{$0, 25%}
{$25k, 30%}
{$50k, 35%}
{$75k, 40%}
{$100k, 45%}

Five things:

1.) Assuming that you are getting rid of all other taxes, you have to have a tax rate on all income, maybe 5 to 10% on income below the cap and then a higher rate above it. Basically will match the current payroll taxes that people currently pay.

2.) I doubt that your points would be anywhere near that linear, given how long the tail is on income. After 50K the number of people who make that amount of money falls quickly.

3.) Each person files taxes individually, no more filing jointly.

4.) I don't think getting rid of excise taxes is needed, I think that user taxes are among the least objectionable.

5.) Because you are getting rid of all payroll taxes you have to do something to change corporate tax structure as well. Considering that you are no longer separating capital gains from regular income, I'd have no problem doing away with the corporate tax completely and just have that money be taxed once as general income of the corporation owners, assuming that corporations are willing to support legislation that removes their person status and prevents corporations from spending money on political campaigns or donating to political campaigns or PACS (which is a debate for a different thread).

 

[busterman62]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Assuming they make millions, sure.

But in the hypothetical where someone makes the equivalent of your salary in unearned income (capital gains, dividends), they'd be paying less in taxes than you.

Haven't the vast majority of the monies used to obtain "unearned income" already been taxed previously? Someone at some point had to "earn" said money and would have supposedly been taxed?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Assuming they make millions, sure.

But in the hypothetical where someone makes the equivalent of your salary in unearned income (capital gains, dividends), they'd be paying less in taxes than you.

I think someone whose only income was due to capital gains in the amount of my income is *extremely* hypothetical... If you had that little income from your investments, you'd have a job, too, or you'd never be able to withstand a bad year in the market - or even a bad few months. I think that category of citizen is extremely rare.

When people get $$$ in their eyes dreaming of going after capital gains, it's not small actors like that that they're thinking of - it's the guys who ARE making millions.