Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.
a fine example of sheeple fodder.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.
Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.
a fine example of sheeple fodder.
The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.
I don't know what a computational offset is, but progressive tax is based on the balance of after-tax earnings and the cost of living/poverty line as determining factors affecting your rate. As you deduct more kids, the cost of living is adjusted accordingly.
Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.
a fine example of sheeple fodder.
How's that? What of what I said is an example of "sheeple fodder"?
Are most members of Congress in the top 1% of income earners?
I don't know what a computational offset is, but progressive tax is based on the balance of after-tax earnings and the cost of living/poverty line as determining factors affecting your rate. As you deduct more kids, the cost of living is adjusted accordingly.
Actually, progressive taxation doesn't take cost of living into account at all. It assumes that cost of living is equal across the board. Cost of living isn't about how many dependents you have. It's about how much it takes to provide for yourself in one region compared to another region. For example, in Alabama a police officer might make a starting salary of $30,000 (about $26,000 in taxable income) a year. His living costs there might be about $10,000 and his tax bracket would put him relatively low. But in Hawaii that same person might start off at $80,000 (about $76,000 in taxable income) a year and have living expenses of about $45,000 a year. But he'll be in a higher tax bracket and taxed a higher rate. If the Alabama cop has a 20% tax rate, he pays $5200 in taxes and still lives comfortably with $14,800 a year with which to go to a football game, eat out, trade in his car for a new model, whatever luxury he wishes to afford himself. But the Hawaiian cop has a 30% tax rate, pays $22,800 in taxes. That leaves him with $12,200 a year for his own luxuries, which are of course much more expensive in his area on top of it all. It seems to me that the Hawaiian cop is being unjustly taxed a higher rate for making what is, for all important purposes, the same amount of money.
Firstly, I don't think the federal government can engage in that kind of discrimination. The Constitution mandates that taxation is applied equally across the territory.
I sort of agree with you. What I disagree with is the suggestion that this is somehow unusual. As one of the administration's top economists acknowledged in the article,
"There is economic literature on optimal taxation, but that ain't what motivates these decisions," said Jared Bernstein, an economist and former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.
In short, the laws passed by Congress are indeed political. That isn't an inherent quality either of the current Congress or of the Democratic party, though. Despite the fact that there tends to be more consensus on economic issues in the Republican party than in the Democratic party, the Republican policies are still see some disagreement, and of course they are politically motivated.
Much of the current disagreement stems from issues other than ideology. For Senators like Schumer who represent constituencies with a high cost of living, keeping the bar at which new taxes would kick in high is a parochial concern. For other Senators, their goal is to craft legislation that can pass, regardless of what tax policy their personal ideology points them towards.
It isn't unusual that a president with failing ratings is now campaigning against "The Rich"? When was the last time you remember that happening? Bush? No. Clinton? No. Bush? No. Reagan? No. Carter? No.
Nope, I cannot remember a single time that a president ran against "The Rich".
Maybe FDR.
Firstly, I don't think the federal government can engage in that kind of discrimination. The Constitution mandates that taxation is applied equally across the territory.
Well, that's my question that I'm trying to brainstorm. How could we go about doing it in a constitutional way? I'm thinking that the whole deduction and adjusted gross income system we currently have would have to be replaced by something more relative to determine one's adjusted gross income. Off the top of my head the first thing I think of is to perhaps use the price of one's rent, or the value of one's home, per square foot, and from that draw a progressive bracket system. That has flaws, of course. Open to abuse, etc. But I'm just trying to get creative. Another option I can think of is to allow states to determine their own rules to calculate adjusted gross income, which would reflect the economic circumstances of residents of the state, and then have an alternative calculation system as a "default" for states that don't have state income taxes. Again, probably open to abuse politically, though probably not as bad.
The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.
Whatever the reasons for fluctuations, they are there. As noted, a person making $X in some places, like Hawaii for example, is certainly nowhere near as well off as a person making $X in Alabama. So which frame of reference are we using to determine the tax rates for given brackets? If we're setting the tax rates on the premise of what $X equals in buying power in Alabama, then that sure creates a burden on Hawaiian citizens.
The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.
Whatever the reasons for fluctuations, they are there. As noted, a person making $X in some places, like Hawaii for example, is certainly nowhere near as well off as a person making $X in Alabama. So which frame of reference are we using to determine the tax rates for given brackets? If we're setting the tax rates on the premise of what $X equals in buying power in Alabama, then that sure creates a burden on Hawaiian citizens.
I agree. It's one of the top reasons I support a flat tax for everyone. (as far as the federal government is concerned) States are better off setting the rates that work best for themselves, more-so for local taxes.
The smaller and closer government gets to the individual, the more reasonable and responsible it becomes.
Food utility and housing costs as well.Much of the current disagreement stems from issues other than ideology. For Senators like Schumer who represent constituencies with a high cost of living, keeping the bar at which new taxes would kick in high is a parochial concern. For other Senators, their goal is to craft legislation that can pass, regardless of what tax policy their personal ideology points them towards.
Makes me think that perhaps income taxes shouldn't be bracketed strictly by income, but with a computational offset for cost of living. How could we do that?
With a flat tax.
But then what use is demagoguery?
The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.
Dems want tax on "rich": Whoever they are
Who are they you ask? Most of congress makes up the 1 percent class.
They do? That is incredible and unbelievable at the same time. Do you know how much income those in the top 1% have?
Its a shame that congress makes so much but our soldiers barely make it paycheck to paycheck.. I think our priorities are messed up
It's not just the Democrats who want higher taxes on the rich. Poll and poll over the past year or so has shown that about two-thirds of Americans want higher taxes on the rich, about the only economic policy Americans seem to have a clear majority on. Here is the latest. In this poll, even the majority of Republicans want higher taxes on the rich.
Cain Even With Romney on Economy for Republican Backers in Poll - Bloomberg
The good news in this poll is that an overwhelming majority think that the middle class will have to burden some of the pain of closing the deficit. However, they haven't quite come to terms on how or when.