Gianantonio
Posts: 7,634
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
SSR Designs wrote: Damn you and your fancy charts!!!
Seriously though you have made me pause for thought.
Right now I'm speaking only for myself and my own tax situation:
1. I would be okay with 20% as that would be a tax reduction. (keep in mind I don't use deductions)
2. Sadly overall in the big picture progressive tax makes sense..on paper (which is giving me pause for thought)
3. There has to be a way to effectively squish the rates closer together so it would be closer to flat.
Thank you....you have given me reason to go become more intelligent (defined as going to do more research)...I will let you know what I come up with.
What sold me against a flat tax was my Dad. He was a staunch republican-conservative with many of the opinions shown here--poor people are lazy; people on welfare just want a handout...
Even he recognized that a flat tax hurts the lower income earners at an undue level. Okay--he was a rocket scientist. But still...
Granted, seeing this requires one to see past just the numbers. It requires considering people's quality of life.
SSR Designs
Posts: 447
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Viking Models wrote:
yes...... Karl Marx (Mordechai Levy) and Frederich Engels
Glad you brought that up. The point being discussed here in theory is there is no "right" way to do things. There are pros and cons to capitalism, socialism, and communism as evidenced in much of Marx's work. His theories on governments changing over time through each is evident of that fact.
What we are debating here, understanding our culture is based in capitalism, how to best provide for the populace while maintaining our capitalist state.
SSR Designs
Posts: 447
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Gianantonio wrote:
What sold me against a flat tax was my Dad. He was a staunch republican-conservative with many of the opinions shown here--poor people are lazy; people on welfare just want a handout...
Even he recognized that a flat tax hurts the lower income earners at an undue level. Okay--he was a rocket scientist. But still...
Granted, seeing this requires one to see past just the numbers. It requires considering people's quality of life.
Haha...I once told my dad (Vietnam vet) That Communism was a great form of government. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that conversation went....through the years in my study of politics and later my degree in political science I became a republican due to the overwhelming desire to see less government action in my life.
One of my government teachers (based on some of my liberal social views) asked if I was sure I wasn't a democrat.
That being said I was raised that people's quality of life is very important, that we should all lend a hand when we can, but never take a handout when you don't need one. Work with a high ethic, be willing to sign your name to any of your work and be proud of it...and then help your fellow man because its the right thing to do. I am from Joplin MO and after the tornado hit....I saw this belief come into play, bringing tears to my eyes, as people of all different beliefs helped to rebuild my town. We had NO looting their...just an outpouring of true help.
I believe that there is a perfect cross between capitalistic competition and good faith amongst fellow human beings. I haven't found that specific point yet...but I will die trying to find it.
MB-2 wrote: We have sliding (progressive) tax scales for two reasons:
Viking Models wrote: yes...... Karl Marx (Mordechai Levy) and Frederich Engels
"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."
SSR Designs
Posts: 447
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
MB-2 wrote: . 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."
The text reads that it is not "very unreasonable" which does imply a certain level of unreasonableness. And this is where my questions come from and search for more knowledge.
Although this particular quote is very well written, to the point, and again hurts my head with more thinking.
MB-2 wrote: In any case, $950 billion is about half the deficit reduction needed to arrest the debt-GDP ratio and one-quarter of what's needed to put it on a downward trajectory:
So no - it's not chump change.
And when have we seen the government substantively reduce the rate of spending at anytime in the last 40 years? Without some sort of real mechanism (like a gold standard) to stop them, liberals will always get voted in when conservatives push for austerity measures.
All you would have had to do over the last 30 years is witness how most parents manage their children in the US to understand the irrational liberal mindset of the younger voting blocks. Entitlements are the new gummy bears.
And when have we seen the government substantively reduce the rate of spending at anytime in the last 40 years? Without some sort of real mechanism (like a gold standard) to stop them, liberals will always get voted in when conservatives push for austerity measures.
All you would have had to do over the last 30 years is witness how most parents manage their children in the US to understand the irrational liberal mindset of the younger voting blocks. Entitlements are the new gummy bears.
Obama signed $1.7 trillion in spending cuts last year and was trying for $4 billion total deficit reduction. He just went on TV yesterday calling for that additional $950 billion, as well as more spending cuts
Obama signed $1.7 trillion in spending cuts last year and was trying for $4 billion total deficit reduction. He just went on TV yesterday calling for that additional $950 billion, as well as more spending cuts
But yeah...gummy bears or some such.
Gutting defense to feed the increasing number of poor is not a sustainable solution because it just helps to mask the trend towards more entitlements. When you run out of cuts to fundamental government responsibilities, then what? How many more people will be on food stamps by January?
Gutting defense to feed the increasing number of poor is not a sustainable solution because it just helps to mask the trend towards more entitlements. When you run out of cuts to fundamental government responsibilities, then what? How many more people will be on food stamps by January?
lol.
Which cuts gut defense and which entitlements are trending upwards long-term?
Michael Bots
Posts: 4,099
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Spending as a % of GDP has been high under the current administration and is high in absolute historical terms. Debt/Deficits are running at World War 1 and 2 levels without that sort of emergency.
Jay Dezelic wrote: Gutting defense to feed the increasing number of poor is not a sustainable solution because it just helps to mask the trend towards more entitlements.
If they are entitled to it then they are entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it then stop calling it an 'entitlement.'
If they are entitled to it then they are entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it then stop calling it an 'entitlement.'
What? We now have a situation where nearly half the country is entitled to receive something from the other half. The ratio has dramatically shifted over the years towards "getting more from less contributors". At what point do you believe it will no longer be a sustainable societal model? I personally think we are beyond the tipping point, however, many liberals believe it can go much further before it jeopardizes the foundation of a sustainable society.
Longwatcher
Posts: 3,635
Newport News, Virginia, US
What I want to eventually see from a tax perspective is a graduated flat tax.
Initially starting at 10% and going up to 35% at the highest rate until the debt is PAID OFF and then it can lower to match spending. This should apply to individual and all businesses.
I also think there should be 4 deductions.
1. Education
2. Medical
3. Dependents (a fixed amount per person subtracting what they make from the amount)
4. Cost of doing business (so businesses only pay net profits after all reasonable expenses)
Please note I would like to see spending down as well, but do it in a humane and thoughtful way.
And if you could add in a amendment that "all subsidizes, grants, credits and the like and related to the same theme shall only be permitted a year at a time without re-authorization by 2/3rds vote of both houses of congress and no more then 10 years maximum, unless voted by a majority of the voting populace of the country to allow continued annual authorization for up to 10 years" that would be a bonus.
And when have we seen the government substantively reduce the rate of spending at anytime in the last 40 years? Without some sort of real mechanism (like a gold standard) to stop them, liberals will always get voted in when conservatives push for austerity measures.
All you would have had to do over the last 30 years is witness how most parents manage their children in the US to understand the irrational liberal mindset of the younger voting blocks. Entitlements are the new gummy bears.
In the year 2000, the US had a budget surplus under President Clinton. Even though it was a good thing, and a path that should have been followed, the incoming conservative administration decided that a budget surplus was a bad thing.
Jay Dezelic wrote: What? We now have a situation where nearly half the country is entitled to receive something from the other half. The ratio has dramatically shifted over the years towards "getting more from less contributors". At what point do you believe it will no longer be a sustainable societal model? I personally think we are beyond the tipping point, however, many liberals believe it can go much further before it jeopardizes the foundation of a sustainable society.
Haha.
The half of the country receiving benefits is largely the elderly, collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (yes, look up "dual eligibles"), while paying little to no taxes.
The young, who pay into these programs disproportionately, vote Democratic.
The half of the country receiving benefits is largely the elderly, collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (yes, look up "dual eligibles"), while paying little to no taxes.
The young, who pay into these programs disproportionately, vote Democratic.
So your theory simply doesn't hold water.
Additionally, while clueless propaganda-indoctrinated conservatives also squeal and mince and prance about over food stamps, it turns out that this "entitlement" is actually very very meaningful to Big Business:
Food stamps help millions of Americans feed themselves and their families, but they also help major companies boost their bottom lines.
Kraft’s incoming CEO Tony Vernon said as much when he told the Financial Times on Sunday that he opposes cuts to the food stamp program or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP for short). Vernon said food stamp buys make up one-sixth of Kraft's revenue and a bigger share of the company’s total sales.
But Kraft isn’t the only company that’s a fan of food stamps, Walmart, Coca-Cola and other big brands have lobbied surrounding the issue, according to a June 2012 report from advocacy group Eat Drink Politics called "Food Stamps: Follow the Money."
Bill Bates wrote: Tax rates are interesting to look at over time but looking at revenue (what those rates brought in) to the government over time is more interesting.
Now when Clinton lowered the tax rate, the government got more money because (and I'm assuming here) because MORE PEOPLE GOT JOBS.
That table shows that Obama was just as "irresponsible" when it came to spending (and I say that because Obama in a speech 'reprimanded' bush for HIS spending)
So... Logically if we raise the tax rate again to the "good ol' days" of Clinton.... Will we go back to the revenue intake of the same era?
I don't know... We will see though as the "Estimates" seem optimistic.. except, Obama is still projected to spend up the Debt again just to break that promise to cut the debt for the second term.
kickfight wrote: Additionally, while clueless propaganda-indoctrinated conservatives also squeal and mince and prance about over food stamps, it turns out that this "entitlement" is actually very very meaningful to Big Business:
Food stamps help millions of Americans feed themselves and their families, but they also help major companies boost their bottom lines.
Kraft’s incoming CEO Tony Vernon said as much when he told the Financial Times on Sunday that he opposes cuts to the food stamp program or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP for short). Vernon said food stamp buys make up one-sixth of Kraft's revenue and a bigger share of the company’s total sales.
But Kraft isn’t the only company that’s a fan of food stamps, Walmart, Coca-Cola and other big brands have lobbied surrounding the issue, according to a June 2012 report from advocacy group Eat Drink Politics called "Food Stamps: Follow the Money."
As usual liberal take a single piece of data and run with it as if it was the gospel truth and the end of all research.
The OP would be wise to look at the TAX CODE not just the TAX RATES during those periods. But he is neither wise nor interested in the entire picture. Talk about a bullshitter.
The half of the country receiving benefits is largely the elderly, collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (yes, look up "dual eligibles"), while paying little to no taxes.
The young, who pay into these programs disproportionately, vote Democratic.
So your theory simply doesn't hold water.
Dude, really? As if those people receiving those benefits today haven't paid into those programs during their lives? Are you that blind or just really that thick?
Again you pick a slice of info and run with it .... Straight into a wall.
Viking Models
Posts: 1,553
Huntington Beach, California, US
Art Silva Photography wrote: This puts things into perspective in a visual way.
Funny how so many people forget history and is quick to blame.
No it doesn't. People think the income tax is the only tax? Well. many states ahev been boosting their sales tax for years, and many did in a response to the great depression, because they lost so much property tax revenue. Gas tax, phone tax. state sales tax, state income tax, property tax, speeding tickets (55mph was implemented to secure revenue), parking tickets, vehicle registration taxes (California), capital gains tax when you sell your house because the government destroyed your neighborhood, cable TV tax, licensing fees, etc etc etc
Tax rates are just a small part of the equation. What needs to be looked at is what revenue is brought into the government by those tax rates because we tax to generate revenue to the government. You will find that lowering rate generally results in higher revenue to the government.
Unfortunately most of the time when the government has increased revenue they have increase spending even more. Once that spending is in place it rarely ever goes away even when revenues drop.
Arthur Laffer wasn't wrong what we need o find out is where we really are on the curve.
ps: also watch out, when the government talks about raising taxes on the rich you often get to find out you're rich.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Wysiwyg Photography wrote: Now when Clinton lowered the tax rate, the government got more money because (and I'm assuming here) because MORE PEOPLE GOT JOBS.
As it did when he increased tax rates. His tax cut later on was much smaller than his tax increase, and as your figures show, revenue growth had been going on for about five years before the cut took effect.
Longwatcher wrote: What I want to eventually see from a tax perspective is a graduated flat tax.
Initially starting at 10% and going up to 35% at the highest rate until the debt is PAID OFF and then it can lower to match spending. This should apply to individual and all businesses.
I also think there should be 4 deductions.
1. Education
2. Medical
3. Dependents (a fixed amount per person subtracting what they make from the amount)
4. Cost of doing business (so businesses only pay net profits after all reasonable expenses)
Not sure how a flat tax can vary from 10-35 % unless you are factoring in a persinal exemption.
I generally agree with the four deductions although I am not 100% on the education part and would like to see a deduction for taxes paid to State and local governments. Some States rely heavily on property taxes and for Seniors that can represent a very large portion of their income.
I think what your post points out is that it is IMO easier to do tax reform than to change rates.
Now when Clinton lowered the tax rate, the government got more money because (and I'm assuming here) because MORE PEOPLE GOT JOBS.
That table shows that Obama was just as "irresponsible" when it came to spending (and I say that because Obama in a speech 'reprimanded' bush for HIS spending)
So... Logically if we raise the tax rate again to the "good ol' days" of Clinton.... Will we go back to the revenue intake of the same era?
I don't know... We will see though as the "Estimates" seem optimistic.. except, Obama is still projected to spend up the Debt again just to break that promise to cut the debt for the second term.
You're doing Bill's work for him. Dropping a link in a thread and walking off is weak tea.
Here's what you're missing:
• You're not looking at constant dollars, and thus disregarding inflation. If you look to column 3, you'll find we brought in more revenue in 1998, 1999, and 2000 in constant dollars than we did in 2003 & 2005 (after the second, more regressive round of Bush tax cuts) and in every year since 2009.
• You're not looking at the most important statistic - Receipts as a percentage of GDP. This accounts for the growing economy, which reflects population growth, wage growth, and higher standards of living - it's a much broader measure. And as a percentage of GDP, receipts in the Clinton years were unquestionably robust, topping 18% in every year after 1993 and peaking at 20.6% in 2000. Bush cut taxes twice and we haven't seen numbers close to that since. 2009 through 2011 have seen the receipts hover around 15% of GDP, the lowest since 1950.
Given that 1% of current GDP is about $150 billion, the difference between collecting 15% GDP and 20.6% GDP is quite significant.
sublime LightWorks wrote: As usual liberal take a single piece of data and run with it as if it was the gospel truth and the end of all research.
The OP would be wise to look at the TAX CODE not just the TAX RATES during those periods. But he is neither wise nor interested in the entire picture. Talk about a bullshitter.
If you want to add info to the conversation, feel free to cite something to back up your point.
If you'd rather continue your drive-by, fact-free rhetorical flatulences, I suppose I can't stop you.
Dude, really? As if those people receiving those benefits today haven't paid into those programs during their lives? Are you that blind or just really that thick?
Again you pick a slice of info and run with it .... Straight into a wall.
Current workers pay for current retirees. That's simply how the system works.
Viking Models wrote: No it doesn't. People think the income tax is the only tax? Well. many states ahev been boosting their sales tax for years, and many did in a response to the great depression, because they lost so much property tax revenue. Gas tax, phone tax. state sales tax, state income tax, property tax, speeding tickets (55mph was implemented to secure revenue), parking tickets, vehicle registration taxes (California), capital gains tax when you sell your house because the government destroyed your neighborhood, cable TV tax, licensing fees, etc etc etc
How do you guys manage to forget all this whenever we talk about the people who pay no federal income tax?
Who has said food stamps are a bad thing?
I know I haven't.
Food Stamps are GREAT actually...
But when you have more people in the cart than pulling the cart.. there is a problem... That's what I am saying.
We need to fix it so that there are less people in the cart or people perfectly capable of walking on their own than people pulling the cart.
There are about 46 million citizens on nutrition assistance just 4 years after the worst economic contraction any of us have seen in our lives, but there are over 140 million taxpayers.
| 
| 
| edu