BF2S Forums Can you put in 25 secs at your work and count as a full day ?

FEOS wrote:

It's not just "cutting taxes." That oversimplifies it. It's really restructuring the tax system so that you increase the tax base, spreading the tax burden out across a larger swath of the wage-earning public.  By doing that, you can lower the average tax rate across the board (the "tax cut") while still increasing overall receipts. Additionally, you increase the fairness of the system.

Honestly, why hasn't this happened already? Is there a valid argument as to why, because it seems to be common sense.

Jaekus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not just "cutting taxes." That oversimplifies it. It's really restructuring the tax system so that you increase the tax base, spreading the tax burden out across a larger swath of the wage-earning public.  By doing that, you can lower the average tax rate across the board (the "tax cut") while still increasing overall receipts. Additionally, you increase the fairness of the system.

Honestly, why hasn't this happened already? Is there a valid argument as to why, because it seems to be common sense.

Because then unions and other socialist groups run attack ads on politicians accusing them of hurting middle and working classes. The teachers union in this area constantly runs ads telling politicians that the rich need to pay their 'fair share' so teachers dont get hit with cutbacks. It's class warfare.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You say supply side economics doesn't work. I think the "stimulus" strategy has proven that Keynesian economics doesn't work. But the economy took off after the tax cuts in 2003. That's weird. Almost like that supply side approach actually did work...but I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to coincidence that that strategy worked when it did and the Keynesian strategy failed when it did, right?

The US has the highest personal consumption in the world, colossal GDP, and you still can't balance a budget?

There should be oceans of spare tax dollars for all sorts of fancy projects.

Wha' happened?

Our tax code is asinine.

Y'see, the people clamoring to raise taxes (particularly on the rich) are often the ones who make up the 49% (or some figure close to that) of people who pay no income tax.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Y'see, the people clamoring to raise taxes (particularly on the rich) are often the ones who make up the 49% (or some figure close to that) of people who pay no income tax.

Or count those people as their voting base.

And btw, roughly 40% of that 49% actually get paid...that is, their effective tax rate is negative.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Y'see, the people clamoring to raise taxes (particularly on the rich) are often the ones who make up the 49% (or some figure close to that) of people who pay no income tax.

Or count those people as their voting base.

And btw, roughly 40% of that 49% actually get paid...that is, their effective tax rate is negative.

i wonder what the rate is for corporations.  It would be interesting to see a breakdown of businesses that get tax breaks, businesses that pay no taxes but receive government contracts, businesses that pay no taxes but receive money back from the government, etc.  I haven't seen the statistics but I'm betting that overall sum is much much larger than the money back those 40% get

I doubt it. You're talking 40% of the tax base of a country with over 300 million people (of course, not all of them are workers, so the number will be smaller, but still quite large). Over 80% of the govt.'s revenue is from income taxes. Simple reasoning tells you that the amount those 40% get is substantial...particularly if you back out whatever the govt gets back in taxes from those companies and their employees afterward.

Doesn't that just mean corporations are under taxed, or more tax should be loaded somewhere else?
80% of revenue loaded on income tax is daft, and why the economy and govt spending goes in such huge cycles.

Fuel tax, purchase tax, corporation tax would even things out a lot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Doesn't that just mean corporations are under taxed, or more tax should be loaded somewhere else?
80% of revenue loaded on income tax is daft, and why the economy and govt spending goes in such huge cycles.

Fuel tax, purchase tax, corporation tax would even things out a lot.

Those taxes exist. Just that 80% of fed revenues are from individual income taxes. Those are the other 20.

FEOS dont you get a tax return?

i didnt.  i had to pay 98 dollars this year.

FEOS wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

FEOS dont you get a tax return?

Yes. Your point?

christ feos, wtf cant I just ask you a question?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

i wonder what the rate is for corporations.  It would be interesting to see a breakdown of businesses that get tax breaks, businesses that pay no taxes but receive government contracts, businesses that pay no taxes but receive money back from the government, etc.  I haven't seen the statistics but I'm betting that overall sum is much much larger than the money back those 40% get

I doubt it. You're talking 40% of the tax base of a country with over 300 million people (of course, not all of them are workers, so the number will be smaller, but still quite large). Over 80% of the govt.'s revenue is from income taxes. Simple reasoning tells you that the amount those 40% get is substantial...particularly if you back out whatever the govt gets back in taxes from those companies and their employees afterward.

you're comparing tax revenue to tax refunds.  it's not the same.

and if you want to back out the money the govt gets back in taxes from the companies and employees after, let's also back out the money those 40% spend on sales tax, etc.

It all revolves around the tax base, KJ.

And what you're getting at with your second point is marginal tax rate...which is a great argument for doing away with income-based taxes and going with consumption-based taxes.

you guys werent talking about red breasted nuthaches?