Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[MikeK]

You seriously think the tax cuts to the 'rich' under Bush cost 1.3 trillion?????? Do you know how much income you would need at the very small % that was cut that will give you 1.3 trillion??

I seriously think you are a moron

Rudeness is the weakling's imitation of strength.

(Excerpt)

Rep. Boehner Says $1.3 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts "Not What Led To The Budget Deficit"
June 10, 2010 4:37 pm ET — Alan Pyke

The Republican who would be Speaker doesn't seem to understand budgets, deficits, the American tax system, or high school math.

The Hill reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner told reporters that the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cuts are "not what led to the budget deficit." According to Rep. Boehner, the current deficits are "a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago."

Boehner's analysis is plainly counterfactual. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has a simple, handy graphic:
Rep. Boehner Says $1.3 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts "Not What Led To The Budget Deficit" | Political Correction

(Close

 

[MikeK]

The fact that nearly half of all Americans don't contribute anything to the federal tax burden, I believe, is the fundamental reason why Obama's rhetoric isn't as effective as it has been.

[...]

If it is true that half of the population aren't paying any tax it logically means half of our countrymen have fallen below the poverty line. So what has happened to all the money these now-impoverished, former middle class citizens once had? Where did it go? The GDP hasn't shrunk by half, so that money must be somewhere. Right?

I know. It has fallen into the hands of two percent of the population. The uber-rich. The multi-billionaires. The American neo-aristocracy.

So as this new peasant class emerges and becomes more and more impoverished day by day, eventually becoming homeless and spilling out onto the streets -- as many did during the Great Depression, what do you suggest we do about them? Let them die in doorways and alleys and do morgue sweeps every morning, as was done back then? Do you feel okay doing that while the main problem some Americans have is which yacht to take out today?

Etc.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[MikeK]

Again.. you are acting as if dollars 1-20000 never existed... so you are changing the playing field.. I simply insist that they are earned just as all the other dollars are...

You are simply disguising your method for a subjective progressive system

No surprise that you avoided my questions.

But again, I'm not acting like dollars 1-20000 never existed. Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I've clearly stated that as long as 1-20000 are taxed at the same rate, for everyone, whether it's a flat rate in a flat tax system or in a tax bracket (even if that bracket is zero) in a progressive tax system then you cannot cry "unfair" or "unequal."

Yes you are... you magically do not want them not to count... in a sneaky pete way of trying to disguise your progressive rates... not gonna fly with me... you may trick a moron, but someone who analyzes for a living like I do... You have been shown EXACTLY how it makes it a progressive system with higher incomes paying a higher % of their income...

You sir, are a ******* dishonest moron.. and your questions are irrelevant because you purposely changed the paying field

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal... and it is you and your ******* ilk that cry the 'fairness' aspect with your subjective bullshit

Pardon me for butting into this exchange but there is something you need to be told.

I was born and raised in South Brooklyn -- close to the Waterfront, as in the movie. I also spent four years in the Marine Corps. The reason for that brief bio is to qualify the fact that I have known quite a few real bad-asses in my life and one thing I can tell you for sure is guys who have anything going for them in that way do not take advantage of distance and anonymity to talk shit to people the way you do. Because guys who do that, by their very nature, wouldn't dare talk to others that way in face-to-face conversations.

Only punks and chicken-shit adolescents carry on that way in these Internet forums.

 

[saveliberty]

MikeK, what does being an exmarine have to do with anything? If it means your dense and can't wrap your head around a progressive tax sstem, I have to say your stupid is from some other source than military service. If you think it qualifies you as tough now, it doesn't. Go wet your pants somewhere else.

 

[Kuros]

Is getting killed with a sharp knife better than being killed with a rusty dull one??

I'd rather not be killed...

That's not an accurate analogy. I've been down this road many times over the last thirty years with capital "L" Libertarians. The biggest fault of the party is the preference for ideological purity over real progress. I can fully understand the folly of compromise that sets bad precedent, or sacrifices current protections - but that's not the case here. We'd be moving from bad to better.

Ah, the rift between the intellectual libertarians and the Republican right-wing. Imagine what the Tea Party would be if the latter were removed from the brew?

 

[MikeK]

MikeK, what does being an exmarine have to do with anything? If it means your dense and can't wrap your head around a progressive tax sstem, I have to say your stupid is from some other source than military service. If you think it qualifies you as tough now, it doesn't. Go wet your pants somewhere else.

It doesn't qualify me as tough.

What it means is I lived in barracks with as many as 60 other young men, some of whom were extremely macho, quite capable of kicking ass and would throw a punch with the slightest provocation. The behavior of such individuals does not include taking advantage of the safety of distance to insult and talk shit to people. As I said, only punks and chicken-shit adolescents do that.

 

[saveliberty]

Try living in a Big Ten dorm floor with 50 guys. Some hockey player, some football. Add copious amounts of alcohol. lol

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay I agree that we need to do something about the deficit. I own a business. If there is a trend indicating financial negatives, I need to do two things: Cut expenses and make more money. Once the trend reverses, I can determine whether to invest more capital and what the ROI would be.

We have more than just a trend here. We're up to our eyeballs in debt. Seems like we need to increase revenues and cut expenses.

The Dems seem to be talking a whole lot more about increasing revenues but balk at about cutting expenses. Their approval of an increase in defense spending would be indicative of this. That was to be, their biggest cut. Not now.

The Repubs seem to be talking a whole lot about cutting expenses but balk at increasing revenues. Although they talk about cutting expenses, The Ryan Plan doesn't actually do it. The Repubs also just voted for an increase in Defense spending. They still want to give big companies handouts in the form of tax breaks and subsidies that my company doesn't get - and unlike mine, those companies neither hire exclusively American nor pay their taxes exclusively in America. Now the GOP is attacking the budget cuts on NASA. So much for their rhetoric about addressing the deficit.

This isn't as complex as both sides make it out to be. If I need more revenues and I am currently giving billions in discounts to a customer who will pay full price, guess what? No more discounts. If I'm spending money on NPR because I want an extra tv station, guess what? No more money to NPR.
Both sides bicker about BS that amounts to almost nil in the budget.

We need to increase revenues. We need to increase taxes and not just on the rich. Hell, I'd probably go all the way down to $100K and just add two percent from there up. If I'm making $10K a month and can't get by on $9800, my problem isn't money.
We need to cut spending. There is no way we need to spend more on defense than China, Russia, GB, France, Germany... all combined. Are we THAT F-cked up??? Please. We need to just get rid of a bunch of government. Didja know we spend hundreds of millions on the "Rural Electrification Agency" (another pet that the GOP for some reason, adores), founded in like, 1920 to make sure rural America got electricity? I think it's outlived its purpose by now. We need to cut a lot of our social programs. Not WIC, Vet benefits etc... so much but people, we have 5th generations of welfare all over the place. WTF?
We need to create some government jobs (Oh Sh1t! ConservaRepubs will attack THIS one!) for two reasons.
1. A construction worker won't CARE if it's a "temporary" 2 year job fixing a freeway, if it feeds his family. Hell, the private sector sure isn't hiring him and he gets a check, he might spend some of that money. You know, help the economy.
2. We actually have stuff that needs to be fixed. Our freeways, bridges etc... are falling apart in some places. Why not fix them.
Increase revenues. Cut expenses.

Oh yeah. I'd legalize pot too. It's not like we don't need the BILLIONS in taxes that would generate and it would hurt the cartels.

 

[MikeK]

nothing like writing discrimination against successful people into the tax code. So much for equality under the law I guess.

To discriminate is not necessarily wrong in either the moral or pragmatic senses. It can simply mean to distinguish, as between the rich and the ordinary citizens.

Inasmuch as the incomes of the rich and the ordinary are not equal there is no reason for the respective tax rates of the two categories to be equal. Briefly stated, because there are progressive levels of income it is fitting that the levels of taxation are similarly progressive.

Imposing an equal "flat tax" on all levels of income would be analogous to staging a race between greyhounds and dachshunds.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Try living in a Big Ten dorm floor with 50 guys. Some hockey player, some football. Add copious amounts of alcohol. lol

Sorry Liberty but a bunch of college boys in a dorm doesn't get in the same UNIVERSE with a US Marine.

I was NIS. I got to play with the boys at Pendleton for a while (CCCT etc...)
Other than our SOFs, I don't think there is a more efficient fighting machine than a US Marine. So yes, I would say without knowing him, that anyone who had the birdie on the ball, on their uniform IS instantly qualified as tough.

I think we've disagreed on a few posts (I'm not an Obama fan and have a big ol Conservative streak in me) and agreed on a few. In any case, thank you for your service Mike.

Semper Fi.

 

[Bern80]

Why are dogs happy despite their relative lack of freedom? Because only one of their needs is being denied (and freedom isn't even really a need) everything else is being taken care of for them. I bet there a lot of people that would like to be treated like a well treated dog. In fact that's kind of the reationship between government and people that liberals think should exist. The deal would be you would have all your basic necessities taken care of at no cost to you. Food, water, shelter, etc. In exchange you can only venture where the master allows you to and they would show you compassion with a good scratch behind the ears for good behavior. It would be human nature to take that deal, especially the risk averse liberals. Security in exchange for freedom. I bet more than a few people would take that deal.

Since you've chosen such an extreme analogy, how about you? Would you rather be a healthy, happy, contented pet dog or a miserable stray, scrounging for every bite of food, freezing in winter, suffering in summer and fighting for your life almost every day?

The problem is those aren't my only choices but your later option shows what a slave to government people like you have become. Option C anyone? How about you get a pair and provide those things for yourself.

 

[Ravi]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

 

[IndependntLogic]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

How would that work?

 

[bripat9643]

Inasmuch as the incomes of the rich and the ordinary are not equal there is no reason for the respective tax rates of the two categories to be equal. Briefly stated, because there are progressive levels of income it is fitting that the levels of taxation are similarly progressive.

It would make as much sense to base the tax rate on height, I.Q. or breast size. What moral principle gives government the authority to take more simply because you earn more? None that I can fathom.

Imposing an equal "flat tax" on all levels of income would be analogous to staging a race between greyhounds and dachshunds.

So you think poor people are genetically inferior?

 

[Big Fitz]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

No deductions. They're inherently unfair.

 

[rdean]

51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

What happens when the nation's wealth is redistributed to the top 10%. Oops.

 

[Big Fitz]

51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

What happens when the nation's wealth is redistributed to the top 10%. Oops.

Still don't get the concept that wealth is not actively distributed, Hairnet? It is the result of economic activity.

 

[Bern80]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

You might have to explain what you mean by that a bit more.

 

[Kuros]

51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

What happens when the nation's wealth is redistributed to the top 10%. Oops.

Still don't get the concept that wealth is not actively distributed, Hairnet? It is the result of economic activity.

Economic activity?

Like $1trillion spent on F-35s, $billions in subsidies for the housing market through Fannie and Freddie, the $billions in equity leveraged buyout raids and the many $billions in derivatives. The FIRE economy of the past decade is fundamentally unsound, and the gov't actively intervened to prop it up with TARP and the Stimulus.

Let's not sit here and pretend that the gov't's wealth distribution goes one way. At least as much of it is transferred from the middle class to the rich as from the rich to the poor. Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs are better positioned to milk this redistribution machine than the stereotypical welfare queen.

 

[edthecynic]

I am not buying what you are selling.... you want nothing more than a different color of a progressive system, with advocating others paying more of a % than you on the dollars they earn

In a simple to figure system of a flat 10% tax rate on income

Mr 25K in a system without a floor pays 2.5K or a 10% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.5MIL or a 10% rate on his income... that , bud, is equality in treatment...

Mr 25K in a system with a 20K floor pays $500 or a 2% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.498MIL or a 9.992% rate on his income

Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me

Does support of an equal % sales tax on all purchases, regardless of income, show 'hatred for the poor'??

What I hate is a system inherently based on unequal treatment and where subjective bullshit rules the way...

Absolutely! Consumption taxes are extremely regressive!

So equal % on every dollar spent or earned on every citizen shows animosity towards the poor??

Seriously... you can't make this shit up.... equal treatment regardless of what a person is, does, etc is wrong to you... but some paying nothing or lesser rates than others is OK because it's not you and you get something out of it at the expense of someone else...??

Typical whacko progressive..
Equality is only OK when it benefits you, and unequal treatment is ok for others when it also benefits you... priceless

Seriously... you can't make this shit up....
Notice the dishonesty in how CON$ argue! First he talks about consumption tax and I answer about a consumption tax which is undeniably regressive, but then he changes to a flat income tax which has nothing to do with a consumption tax and wasn't discussed even remotely in my post.

Typical whacko regressive..
Now he bitched earlier about how unfair it was to have the first 20k tax free for everyone and then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar over that, because people who didn't earn much more than the 20k paid a lesser % of their income than those who earned millions.

But an even greater inequality exists with with a consumption tax that he favors, except the inequality favors the highest earners the most. Someone living at or below the poverty level consumes all their income and so all their income is taxed at say 10%, but a billionaire who might consume only 1% of his income pays only a .1% tax rate on his income.

To quote yourself, "Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me."