We have a revenue problem, absolute proof we need to raise taxes

[alan1]

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?
Tax all income at the exact same rate and there is incentive for the working poor to earn more money. As Benjamin Franklin said, " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Many of today's government welfare programs make it easy to be in poverty, with little or no effort to lead or drive people out of poverty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation

Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554

How woefully ignorant.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

Really? More than 50% of tax revenues?
Can you prove it?

I'm still waiting on an explanation of how one takes money from people with no money and gives it to people who actually have money.

 

[Shelzin]

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?

*ponders*

You are claimed as a dependent... mmm... I'd have to think on that. If you can claim yourself, then certainly not.

 

[alan1]

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?

*ponders*

You are claimed as a dependent... mmm... I'd have to think on that. If you can claim yourself, then certainly not.

Yes, I was still claimed as a dependent on my parents income tax filing.
Back then, the 1040 form also required me to list myself as a deduction, I'm not sure if the new 1040EZ or 1040A make a distinction these days for dependents (teens) that are working.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?
Tax all income at the exact same rate and there is incentive for the working poor to earn more money. As Benjamin Franklin said, " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Many of today's government welfare programs make it easy to be in poverty, with little or no effort to lead or drive people out of poverty.

Well, government welfare programs are a bit off topic and I could prattle on about those for awhile, so I won't.

I don't think taking federal income taxes from anyone living below the poverty line is fair. These are people who can and typically are getting money from the state. Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another is silly, IMO.

 

[alan1]

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?
Tax all income at the exact same rate and there is incentive for the working poor to earn more money. As Benjamin Franklin said, " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Many of today's government welfare programs make it easy to be in poverty, with little or no effort to lead or drive people out of poverty.

Well, government welfare programs are a bit off topic and I could prattle on about those for awhile, so I won't.

I don't think taking federal income taxes from anyone living below the poverty line is fair. These are people who can and typically are getting money from the state. Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another is silly, IMO.

Unemployment benefits/payments are taxed. Isn't that "Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another"?
I don't think taking money from me and giving it to somebody else is fair. If I robbed you but gave that money to homeless person, I am still guilty of the crime of robbing you. See my signature line for more clarification.

 

[AmyNation]

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?
Tax all income at the exact same rate and there is incentive for the working poor to earn more money. As Benjamin Franklin said, " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Many of today's government welfare programs make it easy to be in poverty, with little or no effort to lead or drive people out of poverty.

Well, government welfare programs are a bit off topic and I could prattle on about those for awhile, so I won't.

I don't think taking federal income taxes from anyone living below the poverty line is fair. These are people who can and typically are getting money from the state. Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another is silly, IMO.

Unemployment benefits/payments are taxed. Isn't that "Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another"?
I don't think taking money from me and giving it to somebody else is fair. If I robbed you but gave that money to homeless person, I am still guilty of the crime of robbing you. See my signature line for more clarification.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

I doubt you could ever convince me taking money from someone who struggles to feed their family is a good idea. And I doubt I could convince you that taking income tax from the impoverished won't make people strive for better.

 

[Shelzin]

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?

*ponders*

You are claimed as a dependent... mmm... I'd have to think on that. If you can claim yourself, then certainly not.

Yes, I was still claimed as a dependent on my parents income tax filing.
Back then, the 1040 form also required me to list myself as a deduction, I'm not sure if the new 1040EZ or 1040A make a distinction these days for dependents (teens) that are working.

I have no idea what it was like when you did this... I do know that in my time only one person can claim you as a dependent. If your parents claimed you, then you didn't claim yourself. Or if you do, it's illegal. I mean you might get away with it... But... *shrugs*

I don't know... I'm still trying to work through the possible repercussions of child dependents paying income taxes. I obviously don't mind any other taxes they pay... You know... Sales, Corporate taxes... But... Income... I'm still working on that one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

Taxes and spending are too high

 

[Shelzin]

I had my first job at age 13. I was probably making about $6,000 a year which was less than the poverty rate, but I wasn't supporting anybody. Fair enough for me to pay taxes on that $6k, wasn't it?
Tax all income at the exact same rate and there is incentive for the working poor to earn more money. As Benjamin Franklin said, " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Many of today's government welfare programs make it easy to be in poverty, with little or no effort to lead or drive people out of poverty.

Well, government welfare programs are a bit off topic and I could prattle on about those for awhile, so I won't.

I don't think taking federal income taxes from anyone living below the poverty line is fair. These are people who can and typically are getting money from the state. Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another is silly, IMO.

Unemployment benefits/payments are taxed. Isn't that "Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another"?

Yes... And it's absolutely retarded. It's flat out ignorant/stupid.

 

[alan1]

Well, government welfare programs are a bit off topic and I could prattle on about those for awhile, so I won't.

I don't think taking federal income taxes from anyone living below the poverty line is fair. These are people who can and typically are getting money from the state. Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another is silly, IMO.

Unemployment benefits/payments are taxed. Isn't that "Giving them money in one hand and taking it back in another"?
I don't think taking money from me and giving it to somebody else is fair. If I robbed you but gave that money to homeless person, I am still guilty of the crime of robbing you. See my signature line for more clarification.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

I doubt you could ever convince me taking money from someone who struggles to feed their family is a good idea. And I doubt I could convince you that taking income tax from the impoverished won't make people strive for better.

Except when we agree,

Low incomes paying the same rate as upper incomes is fair?

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

 

[Erand7899]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

Neither party is obligated to parrot your beliefs. A VAT is a disaster for any economy. It is a hidden tax, and it raises the basic cost of all products, thereby making competition with other countries harder, if not impossible.

We may very well need additional taxes through higher rates to get us out of the debt quagmire that our entitlement minded politicians have gotten us into, but first we have to fix the spending.

History is clear, that increased revenues always generates more spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

History is clear, that increased revenues always generates more spending.

That is the absolute truth. States that have tried to balance their budgets through tax increases always end up deeper in the hole than ones that cut spending.

 

[Avorysuds]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

So what's the answer? Tax more and redisibute it back to the rich? Or are you saying curruption would somehow vanish if you raised taxes?

It's also intersting how you attack rich people for paying low taxes but getting money from Government but make no mention of poor people paying little to no taxes and getting money from Government.

 

[francoHFW]

The last EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was 12%. NOT ENOUGH!

Include ALL taxes and fees, and the poorest pay more than that, as much as the richest %wise.

 

[Shelzin]

The last EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was 12%. NOT ENOUGH!

Include ALL taxes and fees, and the poorest pay more than that, as much as the richest %wise.

Eh.. Current corporate tax rate is 15-39% depending on bracket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

I just realized you are posting from Finland.

You understand this then.

In Canada we have the GST. It's a straight tax across the board.

Indeed. I understand the criticisms of it and the reasons for and against it, but I think it is the best solution mainstream conservative thinking has put forward.

It works, basically.

It is far from the best solution, adding a VAT would just make things worse by putting a further drag on the economy. What we need to do is repeal the 16th Amendment and couple that with another tax that can be used to fund the government. I think the best solution to that would be a carbon tax. The government could use the revenue to send everyone who makes less than the poverty level a check in order to make it progressive enough to appease the idiots, and everyone would be sharing the pain of conspicuous consumption.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It amazes me that nobody even bothered to discuss the topic of this thread. My guess is A) they didn't understand it, r B)chose to ignore the inferences.

I have been wondering about that myself. I was waiting to see how long it is before someone actually tries to defend government spending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We spend four times as much on defense as the next country, so I think we cut 75% from there before we take food from hungry people, agreed?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it were that simple anyone could do it.

The truth is that we do spend more than we need to on defense, but some of that defense budget goes toward programs you, personally, would scream about if they were eliminated. Then we have the fact that a major portion of that budget goes to things like equipment and advance weapon systems that enable us to stay ahead of the curve in technology.