FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6402|'Murka

You missed the point, Turq. The number of people who actually pay taxes as a percentage of tax filers has dropped every year. When you have even the lowest tax brackets paying something, tax revenues go up, even if overall tax rates are lower.

And you still have the highest income earners paying the vast majority of taxes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

You missed the point, Turq. The number of people who actually pay taxes as a percentage of tax filers has dropped every year. When you have even the lowest tax brackets paying something, tax revenues go up, even if overall tax rates are lower.

And you still have the highest income earners paying the vast majority of taxes.
Well, if you're suggesting we should close up a lot of the tax deductions that everyone has, I can support that.  Why not make all tax rates the true AMT -- a percentage you can't deduct below?

At the same time, however, I think there should be income that you don't have any tax liability on.  For example, in Canada, the first $10,382 you make isn't taxed at all.  That should apply here as well.

Nevertheless, you still dodged what I pointed out.  Even if all of these people were actually paying taxes, that wouldn't make as big of a difference as the top 10% paying more themselves.  Because the wealthy have more tax loopholes to work with than the poor and working class, they don't usually pay the max rate -- they typically pay the AMT, which is much lower.

If we instead made the official rates work like the AMT (you can't deduct below them), then a lot more government revenue would be accrued.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA
Isn't the AMT just a Flat tax?

Personally I wish we only taxes consumption.  But unfortunately the government increasing spending and taxes at the same times will mean they are going generate less revenue overall.

The rumor mill has it that since Congress just "deemed" a budget for 2011 that they will continue to spend at these historic levels unabated.  The "Tax commission" will come back in December and propose a VAT tax and increased taxes.  The "Crazy Dusk" session will enact them before the new Congress is sworn in in January.  The increased taxes starting in January 1st, 2011 will start another recession - it won't be pretty.

I hope I'm wrong and none of this happens, but it doesn't look too good right now.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Isn't the AMT just a Flat tax?
It's close to flat.  It starts out at 26% and can go up to 28%.

What I'm suggesting is that we change the current official rates into AMTs in function.  In other words, if your official tax rate is 15%, then you should have to pay that and shouldn't be able to deduct below that.  By the same token, the wealthiest would pay 35% and wouldn't be able to deduct below that.  Granted, the wealthy wouldn't be paying 35% on all of their income -- just the income past the minimum amount that enters that bracket.

Harmor wrote:

Personally I wish we only taxes consumption.  But unfortunately the government increasing spending and taxes at the same times will mean they are going generate less revenue overall.
I would normally agree, however, it's ironic you would suggest that.  You mention in that other thread that a Democrat has proposed taxing internet purchases.  That's the only way you could feasibly tax all consumption in America -- you would have to implement a national sales tax on both offline and online purchases here.

Since the imposition of a national sales tax on internet purchases would be exceedingly difficult to consistently enforce, I think taxing income will have to continue onwards.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6402|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You missed the point, Turq. The number of people who actually pay taxes as a percentage of tax filers has dropped every year. When you have even the lowest tax brackets paying something, tax revenues go up, even if overall tax rates are lower.

And you still have the highest income earners paying the vast majority of taxes.
Well, if you're suggesting we should close up a lot of the tax deductions that everyone has, I can support that.  Why not make all tax rates the true AMT -- a percentage you can't deduct below?

At the same time, however, I think there should be income that you don't have any tax liability on.  For example, in Canada, the first $10,382 you make isn't taxed at all.  That should apply here as well.

Nevertheless, you still dodged what I pointed out.  Even if all of these people were actually paying taxes, that wouldn't make as big of a difference as the top 10% paying more themselves.  Because the wealthy have more tax loopholes to work with than the poor and working class, they don't usually pay the max rate -- they typically pay the AMT, which is much lower.

If we instead made the official rates work like the AMT (you can't deduct below them), then a lot more government revenue would be accrued.
I didn't dodge anything, Turq. You're arguing a point that I wasn't making, tbh.

The top wage earners DO pay the vast majority of taxes, you can't argue that. You just want them to pay even MORE of a vast majority, apparently.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA
I believe that you should only be able to charge sales tax on a purchase if the business has a physical presence in that state.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You missed the point, Turq. The number of people who actually pay taxes as a percentage of tax filers has dropped every year. When you have even the lowest tax brackets paying something, tax revenues go up, even if overall tax rates are lower.

And you still have the highest income earners paying the vast majority of taxes.
Well, if you're suggesting we should close up a lot of the tax deductions that everyone has, I can support that.  Why not make all tax rates the true AMT -- a percentage you can't deduct below?

At the same time, however, I think there should be income that you don't have any tax liability on.  For example, in Canada, the first $10,382 you make isn't taxed at all.  That should apply here as well.

Nevertheless, you still dodged what I pointed out.  Even if all of these people were actually paying taxes, that wouldn't make as big of a difference as the top 10% paying more themselves.  Because the wealthy have more tax loopholes to work with than the poor and working class, they don't usually pay the max rate -- they typically pay the AMT, which is much lower.

If we instead made the official rates work like the AMT (you can't deduct below them), then a lot more government revenue would be accrued.
I didn't dodge anything, Turq. You're arguing a point that I wasn't making, tbh.

The top wage earners DO pay the vast majority of taxes, you can't argue that. You just want them to pay even MORE of a vast majority, apparently.
If they make the vast majority of income, they should pay the vast majority of income tax.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-03 10:14:52)

eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5250|foggy bottom

Harmor wrote:

I believe that you should only be able to charge sales tax on a purchase if the business has a physical presence in that state.
thats gotta be the dumbest thing youve said all week.  you know how many thousands and thousands of companies are incorporated in states like deleware or even outside conus in the bahamas.  these fuckers are already ripping off tax payers, theyre either paying very little tax or no tax at all.
Tu Stultus Es
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

I believe that you should only be able to charge sales tax on a purchase if the business has a physical presence in that state.
And that only encourages businesses to move to areas that don't have sales taxes or have lower ones.  Unless you can implement a sales tax nationwide that somehow can't be dodged by businesses overseas, then it's just not going to work.

For example, I don't think even a Democratically controlled Congress will pass these sales tax laws on online purchases.  If they do, they're idiots, because they'll just push even more businesses overseas.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5985|Truthistan
Spending requires money
governments get money through taxes
we spend more, we need to tax more..... unless you want to look like California

The problem we face now is because we didn't tax enough in the past to cover spending and now the credit card bill is in and its a whopper.

If taxes don't go up, and we let the defecit continue to climb then its the younger generation that's going to be hurt. We should tax more now so that we can get some money out of the baby boomers, its their mess they need to pay for it.


I posted on an another post that on CNBC they talked about how business are sitting on about $1 trillion in cash. The economy is not moving because they sitting ont he cash and are not hiring. no jobs = no recovery, no recovery = lower tax revenues. austerity = shrinking the economy that is already shrinking

In all seriousness, either business need to get off their a$$e$ and back to the business of hiring, or the govt should tax that money out of them and spend it create jobs so that the money starts to cycle through the economy again. This capital strike stuff is BS.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA
Maybe reducing taxes and making it a hospitable place to risk their investments they'll start doing what they do best...and create wealth.

You don't get more money when you raise taxes.  You're violating the 5th principle of Reaganomics and assuming that the economy is static - its not.

Taxes are going up and the uncertainty of regulations (i.e. Obamacare), is looming around the corner.

I'm about to buy a business in Orange County that and would hire 10 new employees by October, but I'm having second thoughts right now because of everything that is happening.

All economic indicators are down right now.  Why should a business want to risk their capital now?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6592|132 and Bush

Reciprocity wrote:

Damn, and we were doing so well right up until he took over.

I've heard enough of this Bush tax cut bullshit.  It they're so vital, why did the economy spin down the shitter?
It started spinning before the cuts also.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina
More than anything, we need to cut spending.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5985|Truthistan

Harmor wrote:

Maybe reducing taxes and making it a hospitable place to risk their investments they'll start doing what they do best...and create wealth.

You don't get more money when you raise taxes.  You're violating the 5th principle of Reaganomics and assuming that the economy is static - its not.

Taxes are going up and the uncertainty of regulations (i.e. Obamacare), is looming around the corner.

I'm about to buy a business in Orange County that and would hire 10 new employees by October, but I'm having second thoughts right now because of everything that is happening.

All economic indicators are down right now.  Why should a business want to risk their capital now?
Or maybe its simply that there are a bunch of GOP supporters holding back their investment for political reasons.


Anyway, here's where reaganomics falls off of the rails, with the lower taxes = growth... because lower taxes do not generate growth when you are running a deficit... the lower tax incentive just becomes a shovel that's digging a deeper hole and burden that has to be repayed later...  and its the height of stupidity to lower taxes when you are running huge deficits. btw increasing taxes does not grow the economy either, but it does create a more stable economy, but not if you are running a deficit to do it.

have you ever notice how similar the words deficit and defecate are?

But here's what I think about the crap that's going on right now...
When you talk about managing the economy, what we need to do is discuss taxes in absolute terms, not in relative terms. The problems we are having in the economy are that "incentives" and "loopholes" and "different rates" are used to create artificial imbalances between actors in the economy. And actors in the economy plan their investments and business strategies with tax planning and tax avoidance. It sad that providing incentives to one business and not another can mean that one business is getting screwed with their own tax money because a competitor is getting "incentivized" and being given an advantage over the other. Just think how much better off we would be right now if the Bush tax cuts had never been passed and if we had continued to run surpluses from clinton's presidency.


Taxes should not be relative, whether taxes are 15% or 50% is irrelevant if everyone is paying the same and that includes people in all types of businesses and in all types of investments and to all people in the past years and in future years. What is important is that there has to be equal treatment and stability in the tax rate so that people can't play find the loophole or bribe the senator for an incentive or a "reaganomic" tax break. With the expiration of the bush tax cuts, I'm sure that there are people out there who think that they should sell this or that to avoid taxes, and others who are holding back investment. The problem with that is that these people are acting rationally to maximize their investments, the problem is that the system is irrational. The problem we have is that the tax rate is not stable over the long term and people are playing games and hedging and lobbying and betting on regime change to tilt the game their way and its becomes the politicization of taxation. If the tax rate were stabilized or fixed over the long term, then we wouldn't be having these problems with people being unsure of whether or not to invest.

Like Truq said, you need to cut spending. To follow that up I would add that if you have a long term fixed rate of taxation that's more or less permanent, you do away with incentive crap and create a level playing field for everyone and everyone knows the game, and you adjust spending according to the govt revenues actually coming in... then IMO you would go along way to having good, sustainable management of the government and the economy. In that line of thought, may be this country needs to constitutionalize a fixed rate of taxation and do away permanently with incentives... and throw in a balanced budget provision too... because its obvious that immaturity,  greed and selfishness rule wall street and capital hill. Congress really has become a money making machine for certain groups in favor with the ruling party, we really need to shut that down and put them to work providing us with good management of the govt and the economy. As it stands now, everyone is a game player and everyone wants an incentive free lunch and a risk free sure thing.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA
Bush and the Republican congress undoubtedly turned the surpluses in the late 90s into deficits from 2000-2006 (400 billion in 2006).  Granted, that's not in dispute. 

But its Obama and the Democratically controlled congress from 2009 till now that have accelerated those deficits to $1.54 trillion - that's 4x the largest Bush deficit in the last 2 years of his presidency (with a Democrat controlled Congress btw 2006-2008).

Obama created these deficits so that his Deficit Commission (non-elected/vetted by congress appointee-like czars), in December, will propose a VAT tax and increased taxes on families making less than $250,000 / year (violating his no-tax pledge from the campaign - surprised?).

The deficits he created people though were to hedge against a disaster, a depression, but really were spent on slush funds (i.e. TARP), and government union bailouts (I believe at least $50 went to the States to shore up their budgets - correct me where I'm wrong).


Its like he's throwing kerosene in a burning building with a small kitchen fire...if we keep this up the whole thing will come down.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

Phrozenbot wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Harmor wrote:

And look at what we are getting for it?  Out-of-control wasteful spending is what we have now.
I agree that you are getting the raw deal with your government's spending. But the simple fact is that the defecit/surplus = government spending - tax income. Yes you do need to drastically cut ineffective government spending, but taxes will have to go up at some point. Such a massive deficit gives no room to apply economic stimulus via fiscal policy (ie. the government has no money..), while your overnight cash rate of 0-0.25% can't be lowered anymore to stimulate the economy with monetary policy..

Can't have it both ways..
I can't believe you think an increase in taxes will aid in the reduction of our deficit. The current account deficit and future debt obligations exceeds over $50 trillion. A 10%, 20%, 50%, etc. increase in taxes will have little impact without harming economic growth.

Deficits are almost always from blatant excessive spending, not lack of revenue...
" Businesses Hunkering Down

The June jobs report illustrates that the recovery in the labor market has slowed. The labor market remains weak and job growth is elusive. Businesses are saving their cash as they worry about looming tax increases, government regulations, and below-average economic growth. Congress should resist efforts to pass another weak stimulus bill that would transfer resources from the private to the public sector. Instead, Congress should look to encourage private business development and formation through tax cuts and fewer regulations. "

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … ts-Economy

---

Increasing taxes stifles economic growth.  And increasing government spending (as much as we love to believe Keysian economists), reduces private sector spending, which further reduces future revenues.

Heritage wrote:

Each $1 increase in government spending reduces private sector investment by between $0.46 and $0.97 after two years and $0.74 and $0.95 over five years ("Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment" 1329-1368).
Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … nomy#_ftn1
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5985|Truthistan

Harmor wrote:

Bush and the Republican congress undoubtedly turned the surpluses in the late 90s into deficits from 2000-2006 (400 billion in 2006).  Granted, that's not in dispute. 

But its Obama and the Democratically controlled congress from 2009 till now that have accelerated those deficits to $1.54 trillion - that's 4x the largest Bush deficit in the last 2 years of his presidency (with a Democrat controlled Congress btw 2006-2008).

Obama created these deficits so that his Deficit Commission (non-elected/vetted by congress appointee-like czars), in December, will propose a VAT tax and increased taxes on families making less than $250,000 / year (violating his no-tax pledge from the campaign - surprised?).

The deficits he created people though were to hedge against a disaster, a depression, but really were spent on slush funds (i.e. TARP), and government union bailouts (I believe at least $50 went to the States to shore up their budgets - correct me where I'm wrong).


Its like he's throwing kerosene in a burning building with a small kitchen fire...if we keep this up the whole thing will come down.
imo tarp, cash for clunkers, $8k first time home buyers and most other crap that tax money was spent on was to prop up prices and to delay deflation, and I say delay deflation because nothing can stop it given how ridiculously huge the housing bubble was, or how big the bubble was on crappy financial instruments that used the inflated bubble prices on housing as collateral on the loans underlying those financial instruments.

You can call them slush funds, but I think its better to think of them as being passed as a result from corrupt lobbying to get tax money to prop up prices. Because with the leverage in the system, a margin call on these investments would have wiped out a lot of rich and connected people. whether it were the Dems or GOP in power at the time, it would not have made one difference in whether or not these things were passed because both parties are corrupted in the same way.... which is why I beginning to think that certain things like the tax rate might have to put outside of the reach of congress and possibliy consitutionalized. Congress is simply too immature to handle the responsibility.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6402|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, if you're suggesting we should close up a lot of the tax deductions that everyone has, I can support that.  Why not make all tax rates the true AMT -- a percentage you can't deduct below?

At the same time, however, I think there should be income that you don't have any tax liability on.  For example, in Canada, the first $10,382 you make isn't taxed at all.  That should apply here as well.

Nevertheless, you still dodged what I pointed out.  Even if all of these people were actually paying taxes, that wouldn't make as big of a difference as the top 10% paying more themselves.  Because the wealthy have more tax loopholes to work with than the poor and working class, they don't usually pay the max rate -- they typically pay the AMT, which is much lower.

If we instead made the official rates work like the AMT (you can't deduct below them), then a lot more government revenue would be accrued.
I didn't dodge anything, Turq. You're arguing a point that I wasn't making, tbh.

The top wage earners DO pay the vast majority of taxes, you can't argue that. You just want them to pay even MORE of a vast majority, apparently.
If they make the vast majority of income, they should pay the vast majority of income tax.
And they do.

But what about the decreasing percentage of filers who actually pay any taxes?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6097|eXtreme to the maX
I think everyone should pay tax, even if its only a token amount and they get it back through benefits or whatever.
Just so they feel part of the system and not feckless leeches.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6672|Disaster Free Zone

Dilbert_X wrote:

I think everyone should pay tax, even if its only a token amount and they get it back through benefits or whatever.
Just so they feel part of the system and not feckless leeches.
You buy stuff you pay taxes.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


I didn't dodge anything, Turq. You're arguing a point that I wasn't making, tbh.

The top wage earners DO pay the vast majority of taxes, you can't argue that. You just want them to pay even MORE of a vast majority, apparently.
If they make the vast majority of income, they should pay the vast majority of income tax.
And they do.

But what about the decreasing percentage of filers who actually pay any taxes?
You saw what I suggested earlier in the thread.  Make the income tax work like the AMT.  Problem solved.  No deductions -- no tax dodging.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6402|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


If they make the vast majority of income, they should pay the vast majority of income tax.
And they do.

But what about the decreasing percentage of filers who actually pay any taxes?
You saw what I suggested earlier in the thread.  Make the income tax work like the AMT.  Problem solved.  No deductions -- no tax dodging.
The majority of those who paid no taxes were in the lower income brackets, not the upper ones. The AMT only applies to upper income brackets.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6396|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And they do.

But what about the decreasing percentage of filers who actually pay any taxes?
You saw what I suggested earlier in the thread.  Make the income tax work like the AMT.  Problem solved.  No deductions -- no tax dodging.
The majority of those who paid no taxes were in the lower income brackets, not the upper ones. The AMT only applies to upper income brackets.
Let me clarify...  What I was suggesting was to make the current brackets mandatory rates like the AMT, so that the current AMT could be abolished.

Basically, deductions wouldn't exist.  You'd make a certain amount of money, pay the appropriate %'s that apply to your income, and that's it.  If the system was that simple, then there wouldn't be as much tax evasion.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-08 17:13:28)

BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6759

Harmor wrote:

We should learn from you Aussies...your country is in better shape right now.   Oh, also its 1.54 Trillion, not $1.3 Rillion last I checked.
That's why I don't mind paying tax. It's a small price to pay for the country I live in.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6402|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


You saw what I suggested earlier in the thread.  Make the income tax work like the AMT.  Problem solved.  No deductions -- no tax dodging.
The majority of those who paid no taxes were in the lower income brackets, not the upper ones. The AMT only applies to upper income brackets.
Let me clarify...  What I was suggesting was to make the current brackets mandatory rates like the AMT, so that the current AMT could be abolished.

Basically, deductions wouldn't exist.  You'd make a certain amount of money, pay the appropriate %'s that apply to your income, and that's it.  If the system was that simple, then there wouldn't be as much tax evasion.
So then you'd have a higher percentage of filers actually paying income taxes. Which would be a good thing, regardless of bracket.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard