ONGOING: The Obama Administration

[MC86]

i don't personally fuss about taxes. i pay them and i get services, quite simple. in return, i demand efficiency, transparency, and accountability. sometimes i get it, sometimes i don't.

my rage is usually directed at policy well beyond "should government collect taxes and at what rate" discussion. you know, like, WAR and ENERGY.

you will not make me angry with any tax talk. period.

I understand that.  I was just curious as to your statement of ''it's our turn now STFU." 

Do you have an income tax liability?

[jlbomega]

yes, great wealth has been created... for a smaller and smaller segment of the population. the beloved "ownership society". well, people are pretty pissed off about how that's been working, so they've instituted a swing in the opposite direction. like most trends, they will inevitable reverse or settle in the middle.

in short: it's our turn, so STFU.

In short... we have seen what "your turn" does and it isn't pretty.  So you "STFU"

[DaveKCMO]

I understand that.  I was just curious as to your statement of ''it's our turn now STFU." 

Do you have an income tax liability?

oh jesus... of course i do. how absurd for you to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you on this matter simply doesn't pay in the first place.

[KCMax]

"New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%)."

Top 25% pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  62K/year is hardly ''wealthy.''  Do you think this is ''fair?"  Do you think taxes, in general, should be fair?

Seems fair to me too. People that pay more money are always going to comprise a much larger proportion of tax revenues because, well, poor people don't have as much money to tax. This "86%" number doesn't really mean anything without any context or comparison. Poor people could actually be taxed at much higher rates than rich people, and still comprise less than 14% of tax revenues because they are so poor, their tax money doesn't make up much revenue.

[jlbomega]

Seems fair to me too. People that pay more money are always going to comprise a much larger proportion of tax revenues because, well, poor people don't have as much money to tax. This "86%" number doesn't really mean anything without any context or comparison. Poor people could actually be taxed at much higher rates than rich people, and still comprise less than 14% of tax revenues because they are so poor, their tax money doesn't make up much revenue.

Sure... so let's just establish a flat tax and everyone will be taxed at the same rate.  Close out the loopholes in the tax system.  It just makes too much sense.

[KCMax]

Sure... so let's just establish a flat tax and everyone will be taxed at the same rate.  Close out the loopholes in the tax system.  It just makes too much sense.

Its horribly regressive. I'd much rather just get rid of all deductions and exemptions.

[Highlander]

Its horribly regressive. I'd much rather just get rid of all deductions and exemptions.

We've had this argument before but by definition a flat tax on income is neutral because the same proportion of income is paid as tax.  A sales tax would be regressive because a greater proportion of income would be spent on tax. 

[KCMax]

We've had this argument before but by definition a flat tax on income is neutral because the same proportion of income is paid as tax.  A sales tax would be regressive because a greater proportion of income would be spent on tax. 

Yes, we've had this discussion, and a flat tax is very regressive because everyone needs to spend a base amount on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter, and poor people have much less disposable income to be taxed than rich people. This is also why sales taxes are also regressive.

[Highlander]

Yes, we've had this discussion, and a flat tax is very regressive because everyone needs to spend a base amount on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter, and poor people have much less disposable income to be taxed than rich people. This is also why sales taxes are also regressive.

You'd be wrong about a flat tax.  Regressive, Progressive and Neutral are tax categories and a flat tax is by definition the latter.  Just look it up for pete's sake.

"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[1][2][3][4][5] In simple terms, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income. "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[6][7] It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay. The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, where the tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[8][9][10][11] In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases."

[KCMax]

I am not talking about the technical definition, I am talking about the effect on those being taxed. In any case, we're arguing semantic. My larger point stands, that a flat tax is bad because it disproportionately hurts poor people much greater than it hurts rich people because a certain portion of income has to go towards necessities.

[Highlander]

I am not talking about the technical definition, I am talking about the effect on those being taxed. In any case it is semantics, the point is, a flat tax is bad because it disproportionately hurts poor people much greater than it hurts rich people because a certain portion of income has to go towards necessities.

Using that non-official definition, any tax could be considered regressive regardless of how progressive it is as long as there is disproportionate income.  That's why we have definitions.  A flat tax is a neutral tax and it's not regressive and to say that it is regressive is misleading.  It may be unfair in your opinion but it's not regressive.   

[KCMax]

Forgive me then, I miswrote. I think the flat tax "sucks balls" because it disproportionately hurts poor people.

[phna]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm

Analysts have described President Obama's budget as a repudiation of the past 25 years of economic pol­icy. In doing so, the President has rejected the most prosperous economic period in American history.

Between 1953 and 1982—a period of high tax rates, spending growth, and applied Keynesian eco­nomics—the economy was in recession 21 percent of the time, inflation reached 13 percent, interest rates hit 19 percent, and the stock market grew only 5.4 percent annually.

However, beginning around 1982, tax rates were dramatically reduced, and federal spending began decreasing as a share of the economy. In the 26 years following this major policy shift, the economy has been in recession only 10 percent of the time (including the current recession), inflation has never topped 5 percent, interest rates have never exceeded 12 percent, and the stock market (despite increased volatility) has soared 7.0 percent annually, even including the recent 50 percent drop.[25]

The United States has created enormous wealth over the past 25 years. For President Obama to pro­pose returning to economic policies of the Carter Administration, which brought stagflation and mal­aise, is unfathomable. Lawmakers should reject this budget and instead reduce tax rates for families and entrepreneurs, restrain runaway government, and reform unaffordable entitlements.

Heritage would promote a conservative view. Is there an apolitical argument out there asserting the same thing?

Don't forget the quotes Maitre D, I mean MC86; would not want to confuse your opinion with another persons'.


"Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

                           

Steve Forbes, Heritage Trustee Since 2001
President and Chief Executive Officer, Forbes Inc.  The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, PC, OM, FRS
                                                                    Former British Prime Minister-- Patron

I like them both, but it's just another smelly opinion.
http://www.heritage.org/about/

[jlbomega]

Forgive me then, I miswrote. I think the flat tax "sucks balls" because it disproportionately hurts poor people.

How does a flat tax hurt poor people?  First of all, most flat tax proposals I have ever read does not even levy a tax on individuals making less than $30k/year.  Second of all, most flat tax proposals involve a rate of around 15%.  That is hardly going to hurt anyone making ~$30k.  Third of all, the low tax rates would actually put more money into the pockets of low and middle income households thus increasing their economic activity. 

[jlbomega]

Heritage would promote a conservative view. Is there an apolitical argument out there asserting the same thing?

I like them both, but it's just another smelly opinion.

Steve Forbes has accomplished more in business and enterprise than Obama's entire Administration.  I think I would take his opinion which he backs with facts and figures over a bunch of liberal hacks with an agenda of social reegineering. 

[mean]

Steve Forbes just wants his tax rate to go down. That's a lot more obvious agenda than some sweeping vast social reengineering conspiracy comprising hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of "liberals" who all apparently think exactly the same and have identical goals.

[WSPanic]

How does a flat tax hurt poor people?  First of all, most flat tax proposals I have ever read does not even levy a tax on individuals making less than $30k/year.  Second of all, most flat tax proposals involve a rate of around 15%.  That is hardly going to hurt anyone making ~$30k.  Third of all, the low tax rates would actually put more money into the pockets of low and middle income households thus increasing their economic activity. 

So, everybody's taxes go down? If no one under $30K is paying - and the rate is 15% - seems like a lot less money for government. Which is fine, but what are we cutting?

[Highlander]

So, everybody's taxes go down? If no one under $30K is paying - and the rate is 15% - seems like a lot less money for government. Which is fine, but what are we cutting?

I think we are just printing more money.  I think much of the world is already bracing for American inflation. 

[WSPanic]

I think we are just printing more money.  I think much of the world is already bracing for American inflation. 

Mo Money - Mo Problems.

[jlbomega]

I think we are just printing more money.  I think much of the world is already bracing for American inflation. 

Exactly.... the current tax code is a disaster and it doesn't provide nearly enough money to do the things our government wants.  At some point foreigners will stop buying our debt and we will be left with two choices.  First, raise taxes on everyone (including the poor) to pay down the debt and crippling our economy.  Second, slash government spending on social projects and foreign intervention and use the savings to pay down the debt.