GOP support a raise in taxes

[Wonky Pundit]

Yes they are... just as loopholes are, even though each person can use them if they follow whatever guidelines...

The progressive rate is merely a disguised way of hiding the differing treatment under the premise of 'fairness'

The 'nuh-uh' defense won't get you anywhere.

Jesus Christ, you are dense even for a liberal

Person X makes 50K and ends up paying an income tax burden of 19% of his income... Person Y makes 270K and ends up paying an income tax burden of 27% of his income... this by definition is unequal treatment by government... even if both person X and person Y paid only 10% on the first 16K... that is subjectively categorizing people with unequal burden in the name of fairness...

As I said.. what next?? Differing sales tax depending on income??? differing parking meter prices based on income?? differing milk prices based on income??
Get into class warfare much?

Don't want to be civil? Great, you can join the other kids on my ignore list.

Buh-bye.

 

[Cuyo]

No... you subjectively want there to be a difference... to try and equalize outcome, or put subjective 'fairness' into the equation, or whatever else

A dollar, is a dollar, is a dollar... simply tax the dollar and not the individual... keeping subjectivity out of it.... much like you don't have a 15% sales tax for a person because they make 100K and a 3% sales tax because they make 25K...
Just like you don't have milk at $1 a gallon for a person making 10K and milk at $10 a gallon for a person making 90K

The people that agree with you would be the people getting over on a lesser rate... passing the buck on to someone else

That's true only axiomatically, because the vast majority of people are 'getting over on a lesser rate,' including you and me.

But I know ones like you will certainly scream for completely equal treatment by government when it benefits you, now won't ya??

I don't follow. But I've already explained that we have equal treatment. It's not my fault if your head full of Hannity et al refuses to let it sink in.

Nice but typical way to try and use an assumption in order to twist the argument..

Sorry, son... I don't listen to hannity, nor rush, or whomever else... I'm not in to entertainment talk shows

That may be, but you're getting all this noise from some place. Unfortunately, ideologue talk show hosts have, to at least some extent, hijacked your party recently, so you might be hearing this stuff second hand; possibly even from your lawmakers.

But no, there's no way you've done an objective analysis and determined that the first bag of diapers is exactly the same as the 3rd yacht.

 

[Skynet]

Not the same dollar amount, but the same tiered percentages...

give you reasoning why there needs to be tiers? vs a flat tax.

A progressive-tiered system that brings in the same revenue as a flat tax counterpart will result in more consumer spending.

i fail to see your proof....

 

[Missourian]

There is no way to justify the progressive tax rate as fair.

I've heard many explanations, but none hold water.

Every American shares the opportunity to use the services of the government equally.

Every American should shoulder a portion of the burden in providing those services.

Neither a system of progressive tax tiers nor a flat tax is "fair."

I agree, the only truly fair taxation is to divide the total cost of government by the population of the country and each citizen owe that sum.

Well...that ain't never gonna happen.

But, shouldn't we at least try to make taxation as fairly distributed as possible?

Every citizen should have, proportionally, an equal amount of skin in the game.

If you are not paying for anything, of course you want the government to provide every possible service under the sun.

And your answer to every fiscal dilemma is to raise taxes, as that solution doesn't affect you in the least.

That is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.

Those with no skin in the game demanding more and more from those that are footing the bill.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

give you reasoning why there needs to be tiers? vs a flat tax.

A progressive-tiered system that brings in the same revenue as a flat tax counterpart will result in more consumer spending.

i fail to see your proof....

Just look at the total consumer spending in the US today, and the income brackets that account for it. The middle and working classes spend more on consumer products, in the aggregate, than the rich do. Therefore, it's highly probably that putting more money in the pockets of this demographic will increase their levels of spending.

I'm sure that either one of us could find links that back up the bolded portion above...

 

[auditor0007]

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'

You realize that this will leave the rich still paying the least amount percentage wise in total taxes once you include all other forms of taxes. The poor will be paying the highest percentage of overall taxes while the rich will pay the least. The poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage of their income in property, sales, state, and excise taxes, then due the wealthy. On top of that, I'm sure you would also continue to support the cap on SS taxes, making the wealthy pay even less.

While what you support may sound great and fair, it is fair to no one and leaves the wealthy with an even smaller burden when it comes to taxes than they now have.

 

[Skynet]

A progressive-tiered system that brings in the same revenue as a flat tax counterpart will result in more consumer spending.

i fail to see your proof....

Just look at the total consumer spending in the US today, and the income brackets that account for it. The middle and working classes spend more on consumer products, in the aggregate, than the rich do. Therefore, it's highly probably that putting more money in the pockets of this demographic will increase their levels of spending.

I'm sure that either one of us could find links that back up the bolded portion above...

if you went to a flat tax that essentially lowered the effective tax rate of the middle class how would that not lead to more consumer spending?

my effective tax rate last year was 28% on less than 100k, yet warren buffet who is the 2nd richest man in the world paid 18% in taxes. now yes he technically paid more in terms of real dollars, but why i am punished for making less $?

wouldnt it make more sense to give the lower and middle classes more $, which the historically spend than giving the upper class more which the typically save?

 

[auditor0007]

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.

SS is in trouble in great part due to the simple fact that we allowed our representatives to spend all of the surpluses on other things over the years. We only have ourselves to blame for allowing that to happen. Now the simple answer to SS as well as Medicare is to raise the retirement age.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

There has to be a minimum amount of income that is tax free for everyone. Otherwise, the poorest will end up paying the most when you add in all the other forms of taxation.

 

[auditor0007]

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

So you do support the poor paying the highest percentage in taxes and the wealthy paying the least. Glad to know where you stand.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

We are currently taking in less in revenue compared to GDP than we have in the last 60 years. Over the last 60 years, federal revenue has averaged approximately 18.5% of GDP. In 2000, it was 20.5% of GDP and we had a balanced budget. Last year, revenue was 14.4% of GDP, way below the average of 18.5%. You are off your rocker if you think we don't have a revenue problem. Is it our only problem? Absolutely not. We also have a spending problem, but the fact is that revenue is a bigger problem than spending. It's just that we have allowed the nutjobs to drive this idea that taxes are much too high, so they have been reduced to such low levels that we now have massive deficits that are threatening a total collapse of the economy.

I supported much of this thinking for years. Looking back, I see how wrong I was. We structured the tax base in such a way that we allowed the wealthy to become super wealthy while the rest of working Americans took it up the ass. And honestly, what I don't understand is how so many of you have been duped by this. The super wealthy are laughing their way to the bank, while the entire middle class has been handed the bill for this, but they keep blaming the poor man because he gets food stamps because he can't find a job. It's seriously laughable, and eventually we're all going to pay for it.

 

[auditor0007]

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

As long as we are talking about tax on profits, I agree. But you have to allow deductions for expenses.

If you don't, you'll kill business, especially small business.

Obviously it can only be tax on profits. Otherwise, every business in the US would go belly up.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Do some self-education for a change. Progressive tax brackets are not "unequal treatment."

The level of scrutiny with which the Supreme Court reviews claims of discrimination depends on whether the victims belong to a so-called "suspect class." A suspect class is a group in society whose characteristics are immutable, like race or national origin, who suffer from a long history of discrimination, who are politically powerless, and who are a distinct group. Earning a high income is definitely not immutable, and it does not make you politically powerless. I also doubt that high-income-earners have been suffering from a long history of discrimination.

Of course they are not. What is unfortunate is that in many cases, the wealthy end up paying much less than everyone else after their write-offs.

 

[Trajan]

wheres NY Carbineer to applaud the reps for not enacting another deficit bloating tax decrease?

that goes for the rest of you that went bonkers when the bush tax structure were extended.

 

[auditor0007]

There is no way to justify the progressive tax rate as fair.

I've heard many explanations, but none hold water.

Every American shares the opportunity to use the services of the government equally.

Every American should shoulder a portion of the burden in providing those services.

Let me explain what happens if you tax everyone at the same rate with zero deductions or exemptions. The poor and middle class become much poorer overnight as all of a sudden, their taxes increase by $5000 to $10,000 per year. Take $10,000 per year out of the pocket of a family earning $50,000 per year, and guess what happens next. If I have to explain it to you, then it's not worth the effort. Figure it out for yourself.

 

[Skynet]

There is no way to justify the progressive tax rate as fair.

I've heard many explanations, but none hold water.

Every American shares the opportunity to use the services of the government equally.

Every American should shoulder a portion of the burden in providing those services.

Let me explain what happens if you tax everyone at the same rate with zero deductions or exemptions. The poor and middle class become much poorer overnight as all of a sudden, their taxes increase by $5000 to $10,000 per year. Take $10,000 per year out of the pocket of a family earning $50,000 per year, and guess what happens next. If I have to explain it to you, then it's not worth the effort. Figure it out for yourself.

a person making $50k per year (as a single person) actually already pays an effective tax rate of over 20% (after taking deduction) its actually closer to 28%

a flat tax at 20% would actually lower his tax burdon.

 

[Missourian]

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

As long as we are talking about tax on profits, I agree. But you have to allow deductions for expenses.

If you don't, you'll kill business, especially small business.

Obviously it can only be tax on profits. Otherwise, every business in the US would go belly up.

A lot of Sole Proprietorships like mine out there that file everything together.

When you talk about "getting rid of all deductions" when it comes to personal income tax, you need to clarify what you consider as the "deductions" you wish to dispose of.

What deductions and loop holes are we talking about exactly?

No need to spell them out, if anyone has a link that explains it I'd be happy to read it.

 

[auditor0007]

There is no way to justify the progressive tax rate as fair.

I've heard many explanations, but none hold water.

Every American shares the opportunity to use the services of the government equally.

Every American should shoulder a portion of the burden in providing those services.

Let me explain what happens if you tax everyone at the same rate with zero deductions or exemptions. The poor and middle class become much poorer overnight as all of a sudden, their taxes increase by $5000 to $10,000 per year. Take $10,000 per year out of the pocket of a family earning $50,000 per year, and guess what happens next. If I have to explain it to you, then it's not worth the effort. Figure it out for yourself.

a person making $50k per year (as a single person) actually already pays an effective tax rate of over 20% (after taking deduction) its actually closer to 28%

a flat tax at 20% would actually lower his tax burdon.

The actual rate is 12.5% on $50,000. It is closer to 28% if you include the both the employer and employee share of FICA. However, for a family of four, with two children, the rate is about 4% or $2000, and for most it is actually zero. This does not include FICA however.

 

[Skynet]

Let me explain what happens if you tax everyone at the same rate with zero deductions or exemptions. The poor and middle class become much poorer overnight as all of a sudden, their taxes increase by $5000 to $10,000 per year. Take $10,000 per year out of the pocket of a family earning $50,000 per year, and guess what happens next. If I have to explain it to you, then it's not worth the effort. Figure it out for yourself.

a person making $50k per year (as a single person) actually already pays an effective tax rate of over 20% (after taking deduction) its actually closer to 28%

a flat tax at 20% would actually lower his tax burdon.

The actual rate is 12.5% on $50,000. It is closer to 28% if you include the both the employer and employee share of FICA. However, for a family of four, with two children, the rate is about 4% or $2000, and for most it is actually zero. This does not include FICA however.

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

 

[MikeK]

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

Why didn't such ominous portent take place during the period between the 50s and 80s when the progressive tax rate of the upper income levels extended to 91%?

Those were in fact the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. The rich stayed rich, the poor got comfortable, the deficit was miniscule and America was a much better place for the majority than it is today.

So why do you suppose all those bad things will happen if we restore a tax rate which will operate to put the brakes on the emergence of a neo-aristocracy?