GOP support a raise in taxes

[Skynet]

Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

- Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas

GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

uh oh! you mean tax cuts dont stimulate the economy?

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

 

[Skynet]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

im actually in favor of a flat tax as well. no free loaders and no one taking advantage of the system. although i disagree with making it the top rate. i say we make it a reasonable 20-25% for all. no deductions or tax credits.

 

[DiamondDave]

Fine... a 20% flat rate... but I suggest the top rate so the freeloaders and entitlement junkies can feel the same pain they wish to impose on the 'evil rich'

 

[Jarhead]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

im actually in favor of a flat tax as well. no free loaders and no one taking advantage of the system. although i disagree with making it the top rate. i say we make it a reasonable 20-25% for all. no deductions or tax credits.

IN theory it sounds viable..

However...

1)Housing value will plummet as there wqill be no tax advantage to having a mortgage..and as a result, rent prices will increase as well
2)Donations to philanthropic organizations will plummet
3)Investment into lower developed communities will become extinct with the elimination of LIHTC (Section 42)....resulting in an increase in undesireable areas.

That is just the tip of the iceberg

 

[Skynet]

Fine... a 20% flat rate... but I suggest the top rate so the freeloaders and entitlement junkies can feel the same pain they wish to impose on the 'evil rich'

the issue i have with the top rate is that last year my effective tax rate was close to 30% as a single male. while many of the "top tax bracket" people paid less than 20%. theres too many deductions and loops hole for the upper tax bracket. just make it a flat reasonable rate. then if the fed wants to raise taxes, they will need a 75% vote, and it can be raised by a maximum of 1% for 2 years at a time before it reverts. if you wanted to keep the rate at the higher rate, you would again need a 75% majority.

 

[DiamondDave]

eliminate all deductions... that is a bullshit part of our tax system as well...

And the argument that charity will drop?? I don't think that should ever be a reason to justify unequal treatment by government, Jarhead... sorry

 

[Skynet]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

im actually in favor of a flat tax as well. no free loaders and no one taking advantage of the system. although i disagree with making it the top rate. i say we make it a reasonable 20-25% for all. no deductions or tax credits.

IN theory it sounds viable..

However...

1)Housing value will plummet as there wqill be no tax advantage to having a mortgage..and as a result, rent prices will increase as well
2)Donations to philanthropic organizations will plummet
3)Investment into lower developed communities will become extinct with the elimination of LIHTC (Section 42)....resulting in an increase in undesireable areas.

That is just the tip of the iceberg

mortgages wont plummet, owning a home in the long run is still a better option than renting.

donations wont plummet, your just shifting the burden from the government to the individual, and if the individual has more $, then its up to him to decided how to use it.

the ghetto will always be the ghetto, until people start educating themselves more and raising their income levels which lead to a better quality of life for all.

 

[Cuyo]

eliminate all deductions... that is a bullshit part of our tax system as well...

And the argument that charity will drop?? I don't think that should ever be a reason to justify unequal treatment by government, Jarhead... sorry

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earnings as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

 

[xsited1]

Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

- Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas

GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

uh oh! you mean tax cuts dont stimulate the economy?

I hope these guys get kicked out of office the next election cycle. Tax increases are too easy. Serious Social Security reform is needed now, otherwise we'll just prolong the inevitable again.

 

[DiamondDave]

eliminate all deductions... that is a bullshit part of our tax system as well...

And the argument that charity will drop?? I don't think that should ever be a reason to justify unequal treatment by government, Jarhead... sorry

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earners as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

It is unequal treatment for it brings in loopholes and subjectivity.. what is different about dollar 60000 and 60001??? Nothing....

It is a disguised way of differing treatment... you know it, I know it, and most logical thinking people know it

 

[Skynet]

eliminate all deductions... that is a bullshit part of our tax system as well...

And the argument that charity will drop?? I don't think that should ever be a reason to justify unequal treatment by government, Jarhead... sorry

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earnings as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

the problem is the deductions system, which adversely skewed towards high income earners. most of which get the majority of their income through the stock market. (capital gains, which coincidentally the GOP wants to eliminate the tax on capital gains). you could have a graduated tax system, but you need to do away with deductions, to offset the lack of deductions, you also need to lower the overall tax rates. hence why i believe a flat tax would solve a lot of problems, it would also give the govt the ability to more correctly predict the amount of tax revenue on an annual basis, and "try" to craft a budget accordingly (although in this current day and age thats a huge stretch)

 

[Jarhead]

im actually in favor of a flat tax as well. no free loaders and no one taking advantage of the system. although i disagree with making it the top rate. i say we make it a reasonable 20-25% for all. no deductions or tax credits.

IN theory it sounds viable..

However...

1)Housing value will plummet as there wqill be no tax advantage to having a mortgage..and as a result, rent prices will increase as well
2)Donations to philanthropic organizations will plummet
3)Investment into lower developed communities will become extinct with the elimination of LIHTC (Section 42)....resulting in an increase in undesireable areas.

That is just the tip of the iceberg

mortgages wont plummet, owning a home in the long run is still a better option than renting.

I agree, but being able to afford to own a home wont be nearly as easy without the write off of your interest. This is a fact.

donations wont plummet, your just shifting the burden from the government to the individual, and if the individual has more $, then its up to him to decided how to use it.

And most people...not all...but most people will opt to invest it to offset the increase in taxes they will be paying

the ghetto will always be the ghetto, until people start educating themselves more and raising their income levels which lead to a better quality of life for all.

A very general statement...but it does not address the reality of the LIHTC industry asnd all the good it has done nationwide.

MY responses in red.
Thanks.

 

[Skynet]

IN theory it sounds viable..

However...

1)Housing value will plummet as there wqill be no tax advantage to having a mortgage..and as a result, rent prices will increase as well
2)Donations to philanthropic organizations will plummet
3)Investment into lower developed communities will become extinct with the elimination of LIHTC (Section 42)....resulting in an increase in undesireable areas.

That is just the tip of the iceberg

mortgages wont plummet, owning a home in the long run is still a better option than renting.

I agree, but being able to afford to own a home wont be nearly as easy without the write off of your interest. This is a fact.

donations wont plummet, your just shifting the burden from the government to the individual, and if the individual has more $, then its up to him to decided how to use it.

And most people...not all...but most people will opt to invest it to offset the increase in taxes they will be paying

the ghetto will always be the ghetto, until people start educating themselves more and raising their income levels which lead to a better quality of life for all.

A very general statement...but it does not address the reality of the LIHTC industry asnd all the good it has done nationwide.

MY responses in red.
Thanks.

ill play devils adovate here

why should the government have to subsidize your mortgage?

why should the government have to subsidize you charitable offering?

doesnt this lead to the perpetual nanny state? should you not make getting educated a condition low income assistance?

 

[Cuyo]

eliminate all deductions... that is a bullshit part of our tax system as well...

And the argument that charity will drop?? I don't think that should ever be a reason to justify unequal treatment by government, Jarhead... sorry

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earners as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

It is unequal treatment for it brings in loopholes and subjectivity.. what is different about dollar 60000 and 60001??? Nothing....

It is a disguised way of differing treatment... you know it, I know it, and most logical thinking people know it

We would have to get into some philosophy to take this any further; we as a people decided some time ago that there's a financial difference between just living, living comfortably, and at some point, just playing with the excess - Hence the tax brackets. I don't have a problem with that generally, although it does get taken advantage of.

But again, if everyone is on the same scale, you can't really call it unfair. I think there seems to be some discrimination on how one earns his money, and I'm abhorred at the fact that un-earned income is taxed so lightly or not at all (Long term capital gains, inheritance), whereas earned income such as wages and business income are taxed at higher rates. That I find unfair.

If ALL income was treated as income, perhaps I could get behind a flat tax - But I think there should be a threshold of income that's not taxed at the very bottom.

Let's say 16,000 tax free, after that flat tax on ALL income, no deductions, to whatever percentage is necessary to run this place. Deal?

 

[Robert]

Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

- Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas

GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

uh oh! you mean tax cuts dont stimulate the economy?

And then the Truth was told which seems to counter to your's

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who both hold GOP leadership positions, told reporters that the current high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like the payroll tax reduction, don't work.

"I don't sense how this move will install the confidence that small businesses in east Texas and Fortune 50 companies are going to need to take care of the Obama employment gap," Hensarling said.

"We don't need short term gestures, we need long term strategies that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates, lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty," Alexander said.

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earners as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

It is unequal treatment for it brings in loopholes and subjectivity.. what is different about dollar 60000 and 60001??? Nothing....

It is a disguised way of differing treatment... you know it, I know it, and most logical thinking people know it

We would have to get into some philosophy to take this any further; we as a people decided some time ago that there's a financial difference between just living, living comfortably, and at some point, just playing with the excess - Hence the tax brackets. I don't have a problem with that generally, although it does get taken advantage of.

But again, if everyone is on the same scale, you can't really call it unfair. I think there seems to be some discrimination on how one earns his money, and I'm abhorred at the fact that un-earned income is taxed so lightly or not at all (Long term capital gains, inheritance), whereas earned income such as wages and business income are taxed at higher rates. That I find unfair.

If ALL income was treated as income, perhaps I could get behind a flat tax - But I think there should be a threshold of income that's not taxed at the very bottom.

Let's say 16,000 tax free, after that flat tax on ALL income, no deductions, to whatever percentage is necessary to run this place. Deal?

No... We are set up on the premise of equal treatment by government.. no matter how our power hungry government has tried to corrupt the system in the false guise of "we the people"

You can call it unfair on an 'equal' sliding scale.... it is what it is, and you know it.... just makes your unequal treatment easy to justify to those who don't mind having the wool pulled over their eyes

I think there should be no threshold for income.. dollar 1 of person X is no different from dollar 10000000 from person Y.... because your little false basement is yet another way for a differing % or amount paid per dollar overall

So no deal... I will not be fooled with parlor tricks

 

[Jarhead]

mortgages wont plummet, owning a home in the long run is still a better option than renting.

I agree, but being able to afford to own a home wont be nearly as easy without the write off of your interest. This is a fact.

donations wont plummet, your just shifting the burden from the government to the individual, and if the individual has more $, then its up to him to decided how to use it.

And most people...not all...but most people will opt to invest it to offset the increase in taxes they will be paying

the ghetto will always be the ghetto, until people start educating themselves more and raising their income levels which lead to a better quality of life for all.

A very general statement...but it does not address the reality of the LIHTC industry asnd all the good it has done nationwide.

MY responses in red.
Thanks.

ill play devils adovate here

why should the government have to subsidize your mortgage?

why should the government have to subsidize you charitable offering?

doesnt this lead to the perpetual nanny state? should you not make getting educated a condition low income assistance?

I do not see it as subsidizing.

I see it as incentivizing.

However, I see your point and dont necessarly disagree with it. But I am 50 years old and have seen such tax incentives as a way of life.....it may create a serious long term down turn before it gets better if we eliminate them.

But as I said...I dont disagree with your point.

 

[Cuyo]

It is unequal treatment for it brings in loopholes and subjectivity.. what is different about dollar 60000 and 60001??? Nothing....

It is a disguised way of differing treatment... you know it, I know it, and most logical thinking people know it

We would have to get into some philosophy to take this any further; we as a people decided some time ago that there's a financial difference between just living, living comfortably, and at some point, just playing with the excess - Hence the tax brackets. I don't have a problem with that generally, although it does get taken advantage of.

But again, if everyone is on the same scale, you can't really call it unfair. I think there seems to be some discrimination on how one earns his money, and I'm abhorred at the fact that un-earned income is taxed so lightly or not at all (Long term capital gains, inheritance), whereas earned income such as wages and business income are taxed at higher rates. That I find unfair.

If ALL income was treated as income, perhaps I could get behind a flat tax - But I think there should be a threshold of income that's not taxed at the very bottom.

Let's say 16,000 tax free, after that flat tax on ALL income, no deductions, to whatever percentage is necessary to run this place. Deal?

No... We are set up on the premise of equal treatment by government.. no matter how our power hungry government has tried to corrupt the system in the false guise of "we the people"

You can call it unfair on an 'equal' sliding scale.... it is what it is, and you know it.... just makes your unequal treatment easy to justify to those who don't mind having the wool pulled over their eyes

And therein lies the problem. We can't agree on shit, so nothing gets done.

The only 'Compromise' that took place this last election cycle was the popular tax cuts, the popular payroll tax relief, and the popular extended unemployment benefits, then shock and awe when we have record deficits.

I think there should be no threshold for income.. dollar 1 of person X is no different from dollar 10000000 from person Y.... because your little false basement is yet another way for a differing % or amount paid per dollar overall

So no deal... I will not be fooled with parlor tricks

There is a difference, as I explained, and I think you'll find that most people agree with me.

 

[Claudette]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

Especially since Revenue isn't the problem.

Spending is.