Are you or do you know anybody...

[shintao]

I assume you are thinking of taxing all consumption. Food? Medicine? I'd call that regressive.

Also, an income tax requires a huge inefficient bureaucracy that is open to manipulation. That costs real money both in providing for that bureaucracy and in lost productivity with producers gearing strategy towards tax avoidance. That goes away with a consumption tax. It's simple and transparent.

Why not end the IRS. Take the Power away from government to fund. And make you responsible to fund whatever it is you want government to control for you??

You don't have to touch state taxation that takes care of your local needs. Just the fed.

 

[Charles_Main]

Are you or do you know anybody who is going to have to pay more taxes when Bush's class warfare tax cut for the wealthy expires as per the law he signed?

In other words are you bringing down over a quarter million dollars a year.

I'm sure the RepubliCONs are very worried about the Wall Streeters and the Movie Stars and the Pro atheletes (poor Manny Ramirez), and the like.

Oh dear!. What about Warren Buffet? Why this is terrible!

I got to go now, I have to figure out if I can get new tires on the front of my work truck AND buy my son new shoes for school.

Poor Warren Buffet!

Every single Tax Bracket will see some Increase.

So you are either a Democrat Partisan hack or an idiot for asking that question.

Look this up if you must. I married couple making 75k Between the 2 of them, Paid almost no Federal Taxes last year with the Bush Tax cuts in place. That same Couple will pay nearly 3500 In Federal Income Tax if they are allowed to Expire.

Now Riddle me this. Is a Married couple living anywhere in the country making 75k a year combined FUCKING RICH?

 

[shintao]

Now Riddle me this. Is a Married couple living anywhere in the country making 75k a year combined FUCKING RICH?

Oh, hell yes! That is way above average, and Mexicos average is only $44,000.

WikiAnswers - What is Mexico's average income compared to a family in the US

 

[wihosa]

The President has consistently said that he does not want to raise taxes on people making under a quarter million a year. Therefore we can conclude that the Bush tax cuts for those making under a quarter million a year will be extended.

For those making over a quarter million a year there will be a 4 1/2% increase. Somehow I think they will probably be able to make it. Bush's wars and poor managment of the economy has led to massive deficits. We simply need more revenue and we have got to get it from the only people who have had an increase in income over the last eight years.

As for the idea that the wealthy are going to spend tax cut money, the evidence shows that most of it would not be spent. Rich people by definition already have everything they need and most or all of everything they want. They will simply put that money on their pile. Tax cuts are a far better economic stimulus when going to lower income people because they typically spend it all. Why? Because they have to.

Ironically, higher taxes on the wealthy tend to stimulate reinvestment in buisness because business owners would rather keep the money in the company than pay it in taxes to the government. They invest in new equipment and hire more people.

The evidence is the last 18 years, under President Clinton taxes were raised 4 1/2% and business boomed with over twenty million jobs created. Under Bush taxes went down and after his two terms there was no net increase in jobs. Incomes also fell or were stagnant for lower income workers because buiseness owners and top managment had an incentive to take more out of the business.

I asked the question that started this thread because it always amazes me to find out how much the righties will vote against their own self interests, and by the answers I got, we can see how mixed up they are. They want the rich to have tax cuts even if it increases the tax burden for the rest of the country. Truly amazing. Testiment to the power of the right wing controlled media.

By the way, after being self employed for the last thirty years, building my own construction company and raising four children to adulthood I know what hard work is all about. I've never used any government assistance, but I've been close a couple of times. For all you youngsters who are sure that some day you'll be in that upper tax bracket let me tell you it takes more than hard work.To get there also takes luck, something no one can simply will to themselves. All my best jobs were ones that I was fully capable of, but there were plenty of other builders who were just as capable, I just happened to know the right person, just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

It's time for working class people to catch a break. All the trend lines under supply side economics, trickle down theory, voo doo economics, whatever it is being called these days, are going the wrong way for working class people. It's time to favor ourselves. Only one person that I saw said they were in the top tax bracket in response to my question. I wonder if they are working harder for less like many of us?

 

[Si modo]

The President has consistently said that he does not want to raise taxes on people making under a quarter million a year. Therefore we can conclude that the Bush tax cuts for those making under a quarter million a year will be extended.

....

....

Major Legislation
The two major tax-cutting bills from the Bush era were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

These two laws cut taxes across the board for earned income, long-term capital gains and dividends. The legislation also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code, involving exemptions, deductions and the marriage penalty.

Tax Brackets
EGTRRA created six tax rate brackets--10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. The other tax rates would increase to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% for the highest earners making more than $379,650.

Child Tax Credit
One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect.

....

How Will The Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You? - Forbes.com

You may 'assume' all you want.

I assume NOTHING is law until it is passed. So does the IRS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Consumption requires choice.

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

You want to impose a tax system that discourages consumption in the US, a country whose economy, for better or worse, depends on consumption?

The current economic sluggishness is largely being blamed on lack of consumer spending. You want a tax system that would directly exacerbate that condition?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No class? There are entire fields devoted to studying class. Not to mention the federal government uses cut offs (also known as classes) to determine the poverty level you ingrate. There are classes based on income, power, wealth (which is different from income) crime....etc. you can accept them or not but they exist because the government needs to calculate and keep records on who qualifies for assistance, where inequalities exist and why. Political Scientists need class information, Social Scientists need class information, Economists need class information, Anthropologists need class information......therefore class information exists because there is a use for it. You may not feel like you are in a class, but the fact that someone is using you as a statistic in order to determine the state of affairs means that class is a very important part of peoples lives, some even base their entire career on it.

There are fields devoted to alien sex, parapsychology, and ghosts to, does that prove they exist? Economic divisions based on income are arbitrary, and do not define class. If I was born into old money, and a trust fund was set up to pay the expenses of my family's estate, and a separate fund handled my person expenses, giving me food and clothing at a survival level, and an allowance of $500 a month, my income would be lower class.

Would that make me lower class if I was allowed to live on the 500 acre family estate in Connecticut? I think not.

There are no classes in America. What does exist is an artificial, government defined, break down of income for tax purposes.

 

[Madeline]

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

You want to impose a tax system that discourages consumption in the US, a country whose economy, for better or worse, depends on consumption?

The current economic sluggishness is largely being blamed on lack of consumer spending. You want a tax system that would directly exacerbate that condition?

A consumption tax is said to encourage savings and investment...and any bad effect it would have on spending has to be viewed in light of the relief from any sort of income tax its proponents claim. Me, I think the effect would be pretty much neutral as long as the tax burden is the same and not shifted.