GOP support a raise in taxes

[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.

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.

Who's fault is that?

Explain to me why some should pay so much while others pay nothing for the same services and opportunities?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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?

Let's compare apples to apples: you're talking about a tax with no loopholes or deductions, and so am I.

In order for both systems to collect the same amount of TOTAL revenue, a tiered system will obviously leave the lower and middle classes with a lower tax bill than a single-rate system will. The math is pretty straightforward, I believe.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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.

What if you didn't make any money in a particular year? (That's a common scenario, especially these days.) Should you still pay income tax?

For the record, I have no problem with someone earning minimum wage paying 1-2% in taxes. But as auditor2007 has shown, a straight proportional percentage isn't a fair distribution. Low-income families could ill afford 10% while billionaires wouldn't even miss 10%.

 

[mike beev]

By the time the 2001 tax cuts fully kicked in in 2011 51% of the benefits were slated for the top 1%. (Citizens for Tax Justice). By 2007 the top 1% received 23% on the nation's annual income, while in the 1950s they received only 7%. We are turning the middle class into a permanent lower class. When was the country better off?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Can you explain what's wrong with that?

 

[Missourian]

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.

What if you didn't make any money in a particular year? (That's a common scenario, especially these days.) Should you still pay income tax?

For the record, I have no problem with someone earning minimum wage paying 1-2% in taxes. But as auditor2007 has shown, a straight proportional percentage isn't a fair distribution. Low-income families could ill afford 10% while billionaires wouldn't even miss 10%.

If you were paying a proportionally equal percentage, 20% of nothing is nothing.


If you and I go to IHOP, we eat the same meal and get the same service, am I responsible to pay for your dinner because I made $250,000 last year and you only made $25,000?

It is the exact same logic that dictates the well off should pay more taxes.

 

[rdean]

If you don't have a job, what good is cutting taxes?

Taxes are at a 60 year low. The top 12 companies pay nothing in taxes and get billions back. Republicans still haven't figured out that they've come to the end of their only idea.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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.

What if you didn't make any money in a particular year? (That's a common scenario, especially these days.) Should you still pay income tax?

For the record, I have no problem with someone earning minimum wage paying 1-2% in taxes. But as auditor2007 has shown, a straight proportional percentage isn't a fair distribution. Low-income families could ill afford 10% while billionaires wouldn't even miss 10%.

If you were paying a proportionally equal percentage, 20% of nothing is nothing.


If you and I go to IHOP, we eat the same meal and get the same service, am I responsible to pay for your dinner because I made $250,000 last year and you only made $25,000?

It is the exact same logic that dictates the well off should pay more taxes.

You're not comparing apples to apples, either. Governments can't be run like restaurants are.

Edit addition: Besides, no one is forcing either of us to eat at IHOP, so there's never any need for one customer to be responsible for another's tab. With governments, if we aren't allowed to immigrate to a different country, then we're pretty much forced to live where we are.

 

[Missourian]

What if you didn't make any money in a particular year? (That's a common scenario, especially these days.) Should you still pay income tax?

For the record, I have no problem with someone earning minimum wage paying 1-2% in taxes. But as auditor2007 has shown, a straight proportional percentage isn't a fair distribution. Low-income families could ill afford 10% while billionaires wouldn't even miss 10%.

If you were paying a proportionally equal percentage, 20% of nothing is nothing.


If you and I go to IHOP, we eat the same meal and get the same service, am I responsible to pay for your dinner because I made $250,000 last year and you only made $25,000?

It is the exact same logic that dictates the well off should pay more taxes.

You're not comparing apples to apples, either. Governments can't be run like restaurants are.

The restaurant is irrelevant.

I'm not responsible for paying your share just because I make more money.

Whether it's your share of the food and service at a restaurant or your share of taxes for government protections, opportunities and services.

 

[rdean]

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?

Republicans are doing everything they can to bring Obama down. Another example of something that might help the economy. A "directed" tax cut for a specific purpose, not just "giving money to rich people". If Obama is "FOR" it, Republicans are "AGAINST" it.

They screamed for him to go into Libya. When he did, they threaten "action" against him.

They screamed for him to keep Gitmo open, when he did, they complained that he didn't keep his promise.

They threaten to cut unemployment for millions of Americans unless he extended the Bush tax cuts. Now he wants to give a "directed" payroll tax cut and they scream it's a "sugar high" and they won't support it.

These right wingers here at USMB always say they are being misrepresented. These are the leaders they voted into office. See how Obama is trying to help the American people. See how Republicans are blocking that help. THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN!

Now watch them say "red" is really "green". And twist it into "something else".

Paul Ryan: Payroll tax cuts nothing but 'sugar high' - The Hill's On The Money

 

[rdean]

If you were paying a proportionally equal percentage, 20% of nothing is nothing.


If you and I go to IHOP, we eat the same meal and get the same service, am I responsible to pay for your dinner because I made $250,000 last year and you only made $25,000?

It is the exact same logic that dictates the well off should pay more taxes.

You're not comparing apples to apples, either. Governments can't be run like restaurants are.

The restaurant is irrelevant.

I'm not responsible for paying your share just because I make more money.

Whether it's your share of the food and service at a restaurant or your share of taxes for government protections, opportunities and services.

Then let women have an abortion if she wants one.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you don't have a job, what good is cutting taxes?

Taxes are at a 60 year low. The top 12 companies pay nothing in taxes and get billions back. Republicans still haven't figured out that they've come to the end of their only idea.

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

 

[Skynet]

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.

What if you didn't make any money in a particular year? (That's a common scenario, especially these days.) Should you still pay income tax?

For the record, I have no problem with someone earning minimum wage paying 1-2% in taxes. But as auditor2007 has shown, a straight proportional percentage isn't a fair distribution. Low-income families could ill afford 10% while billionaires wouldn't even miss 10%.

i need to clarify. i keep talking about the "effective tax rate" as in the overall rate you end up paying as a result of income tax, ss, medicare, medicaid, state disability etc. not just the income tax. most everyone's effective tax rate is in or above the 20% unless you end up in the highest income brackets where your right offs and investment income significantly lowers your tax liability.

 

[Skynet]

If you don't have a job, what good is cutting taxes?

Taxes are at a 60 year low. The top 12 companies pay nothing in taxes and get billions back. Republicans still haven't figured out that they've come to the end of their only idea.

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

 

[beowolfe]

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

That's just plain ole stupid.

 

[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

That's just plain ole stupid.

No.. it's plain ol' stupid to think you should get benefit that others pay for and you get off scott free on the bill

But uber-libs like yourself love the class warfare game and selective equal treatment, when it benefits you

 

[DiamondDave]

If you don't have a job, what good is cutting taxes?

Taxes are at a 60 year low. The top 12 companies pay nothing in taxes and get billions back. Republicans still haven't figured out that they've come to the end of their only idea.

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

Tax laws including what is includes as income, deductions, etc have also changed from the times of a 90% upper tax rate, etc... What rdean does is lie by intentionally misleading

The top 12 company story is one where facts are continually twisted.. when in fact they do pay taxes...

Simple solution though, to stop all this propaganda... the simplified tax rate/system for individuals and the simplified tax rate/system for businesses as well

 

[Jarhead]

If you don't have a job, what good is cutting taxes?

Taxes are at a 60 year low. The top 12 companies pay nothing in taxes and get billions back. Republicans still haven't figured out that they've come to the end of their only idea.

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

What is not in the formula are the billions of dollars in tax credits offered those coporations so they invest in lower developed communities....and/or underttake intiatives that are for the better of the community.

The old "they pay no taxes" is true....but what the left never mentions is WHY they pay no taxes....the money goes straight to things that need it.

Dont fall for the rhetoric.

 

[Skynet]

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

Tax laws including what is includes as income, deductions, etc have also changed from the times of a 90% upper tax rate, etc... What rdean does is lie by intentionally misleading

The top 12 company story is one where facts are continually twisted.. when in fact they do pay taxes...

Simple solution though, to stop all this propaganda... the simplified tax rate/system for individuals and the simplified tax rate/system for businesses as well

still how have you shown that tax rates are not a 60 year lows?

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

i also posted a link about 16 extremely profitable companies that paid little to taxes. is that fair? shouldnt they be paying their fair share as well?

 

[Skynet]

We have busted these myths so many times it is not funny... but that don't stop you from reposting them over and over again, eh rdummy??

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

What is not in the formula are the billions of dollars in tax credits offered those coporations so they invest in lower developed communities....and/or underttake intiatives that are for the better of the community.

The old "they pay no taxes" is true....but what the left never mentions is WHY they pay no taxes....the money goes straight to things that need it.

Dont fall for the rhetoric.

ok mr genius... explain why they pay no taxes....