(04-13-2010 02:42 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 12:21 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 08:47 AM)Rebel Wrote:  At the same time that our government has seen fit to spend more money that it has ... the number of non-payers (there are people without income tax liability) has increased by 59% in less than a decade.

These aren't the same thing, right? You pay federal taxes in other ways than income tax, and I doubt ~60% of Americans are escaping FICA/SS/Medicare deductions from their paycheck, or ducking things like the federal gas tax.

He did specify INCOME tax liability.

Right, and then in the next paragraph wrongly asserts that these people don't pay for the operation of the federal government. Those operations don't only come from income taxes.

(04-13-2010 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It DOES appear to be a particular pattern of Obama supporters... When given a list of 15 things that someone finds fault with... they find ONE remotely debatable point, and talk about it as if it is categorically wrong and its defeat invalidates the entire rest of the claim.

Maybe you can get someone else to take the bait, but please don't involve me with the your side/my side inanity.

You're directly guilty of it. If you don't like being involved in it, don't do it. I don't call it "sides", because he's MY president, too... regardless of party... but rather than admit what the truth is, and that is that a minority of the country provides more than 95% of the funding for the country... you want to argue about the fact that 95% isn't "all".

Actually, when you consider that the bottom 40+% will actually se Social Security and Medicaid etc, while the top 40% probably won't... all they're really funding is their own future income... not the government.

We're arguing semantics and details when the REAL problem is that there is absolutely ZERO incentive for someone who doesn't pay income taxes to be against ANY increase in spending. EVER.

How are we EVER going to balance the budget when half the country wants more spending, and the other half the country wants lower taxes?

Tax everyone, and give the credits to everyone. Rather than offer a $500 credit funded by a new tax on the rich... The poorer half might be willing to pay $500 in taxes for $1000 in benefits... The net result is the same, but the benefits aren't "free".

(04-13-2010 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tax everyone, and give the credits to everyone. Rather than offer a $500 credit funded by a new tax on the rich... The poorer half might be willing to pay $500 in taxes for $1000 in benefits... The net result is the same, but the benefits aren't "free".

Good point, and often overlooked. Nothing is free, everything comes with a price.

The price of "free" medical is probably fewer jobs. Is that a good trade-off? Particularly considering that the problems with the current system are most acute for those losing their jobs and employer-provided health insurance.

(04-13-2010 03:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 01:40 PM)jh Wrote:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/publication...25962.html

Quote:Figure 1 shows the fluctuation in the number and percentage of nonpayers since 1950 and how that has soared over the past decade. The percentage of tax returns with no liability was fairly low in the 1960s and again in the early 1980s. The recent growth in the number of nonpayers was accelerated by two major tax changes enacted during the 1990s, followed by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

So should we repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Tax cuts produce jobs. They have every time they've been tried. What needs to be cut is spending. The rate of governmental rape doesn't need to increase. Maybe you should ask the question to all these entitlement-minded leeches, "do you want a job? Or another handout?".

According to this the Bush tax cuts increased the number of people with no (or less) tax liability, regardless of the number of jobs created. How will cutting spending affect the percentage of people who pay income taxes (or do you disagree with Boortz that this is a problem)?

The 59% figure cited has nothing at all to do with the amount of benefits that people are recieving. It is simply the percentage of tax returns (not taxpayers) filed that result in $0 or less owed to the federal government (including the original withholdings).

*** ETA: The 59% is actually the percentage change of the total number of such tax returns, not their overall percentage (which is around 36% for 2008).

People complain about "social engineering".. well the US Tax Code is the #1 instrument used to bring it about.

Any serious consideration of "Tax Reform"--going to a Flat Tax-- will make the 13 months of Health Care Reform debate look like a Sunday School Picnic.

There are many "sacred cows" in the Tax Code. The Primary Residence Interest Deduction for example.

We will have to "Clean Out Congress" before any serious Tax REFORM could pass.

(04-13-2010 06:59 PM)jh Wrote:  According to this the Bush tax cuts increased the number of people with no (or less) tax liability, regardless of the number of jobs created.

Why are you leftists just now coming to this realization when, for years, you bitched about "tax cuts for the rich"?

I'm seriously interested in your answer. Bush DID increase the number of people with little or no tax liability. The reason people didn't ***** is because he reduced taxes on everyone. Yes, I'm guilty, but it did produce jobs. I don't think the most radical can say it didn't, and it's not rocket science to deduct why. First you have to admit that it's the free market that actually stimulates the economy....NOT the damn government.

(04-13-2010 08:27 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  People complain about "social engineering".. well the US Tax Code is the #1 instrument used to bring it about.

Any serious consideration of "Tax Reform"--going to a Flat Tax-- will make the 13 months of Health Care Reform debate look like a Sunday School Picnic.

There are many "sacred cows" in the Tax Code. The Primary Residence Interest Deduction for example.

We will have to "Clean Out Congress" before any serious Tax REFORM could pass.

At this point, I'm kinda ready for GTS's scorched Earth policy. It's gonna happen sooner or later. Question is, do you want to be burned slowly? Or touched by the direct fire and react? We're in a state of unsustainability right now. EVERYONE has to sacrifice. I'm willing to forgo any monies I've spent, in my 37 years of life of paying into SS, to fix it. Then again, I don't want to ever pay into that Ponzi scheme again.

(04-13-2010 08:52 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 06:59 PM)jh Wrote:  According to this the Bush tax cuts increased the number of people with no (or less) tax liability, regardless of the number of jobs created.

Why are you leftists just now coming to this realization when, for years, you bitched about "tax cuts for the rich"?
I'm seriously interested in your answer. Bush DID increase the number of people with little or no tax liability. The reason people didn't ***** is because he reduced taxes on everyone. Yes, I'm guilty, but it did produce jobs. I don't think the most radical can say it didn't, and it's not rocket science to deduct why. First you have to admit that it's the free market that actually stimulates the economy....NOT the damn government.

The problem with government stimulation is that, like Keynes, they try to do it all by stimulating the demand side.

We are the largest debtor nation and the largest importer nation in the world, by wide margins. We consume way more than we produce. The demand side is not what's broken.

(04-13-2010 06:59 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 03:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 01:40 PM)jh Wrote:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/publication...25962.html

Quote:Figure 1 shows the fluctuation in the number and percentage of nonpayers since 1950 and how that has soared over the past decade. The percentage of tax returns with no liability was fairly low in the 1960s and again in the early 1980s. The recent growth in the number of nonpayers was accelerated by two major tax changes enacted during the 1990s, followed by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

So should we repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Tax cuts produce jobs. They have every time they've been tried. What needs to be cut is spending. The rate of governmental rape doesn't need to increase. Maybe you should ask the question to all these entitlement-minded leeches, "do you want a job? Or another handout?".

According to this the Bush tax cuts increased the number of people with no (or less) tax liability, regardless of the number of jobs created. How will cutting spending affect the percentage of people who pay income taxes (or do you disagree with Boortz that this is a problem)?
The 59% figure cited has nothing at all to do with the amount of benefits that people are recieving. It is simply the percentage of tax returns (not taxpayers) filed that result in $0 or less owed to the federal government (including the original withholdings).
*** ETA: The 59% is actually the percentage change of the total number of such tax returns, not their overall percentage (which is around 36% for 2008).

No fan of the Bush tax cuts here. They should have been matched with spending cuts, and they should have been structured in ways that focused on fostering growth. We got growth, but wimpy growth, because the cuts weren't focused that way. Letting the number of people paying zero to grow so dramatically was a huge error.

So what kind of tax structure fosters growth (or perhaps more correctly, hinders growth least)? The broader the base, and the flatter and lower the rate structure, the better, at least according to pretty much everything I've found. One concern I have about the pure "fair tax" proposal is that the rates have to be set high enough to impact some economic decisions negatively.

Where Europe is heading, and where I'd like to see us go, is a flat 15% tax on payrolls (like social security with no cap), a flat 15% tax on business profits (all forms), and a flat 15% consumption tax (and I'm not all that hung up on whether it is a retail tax like fair tax or a VAT). 15% is just not high enough that people will engage in expensive efforts to dodge the tax. No 1040, no April 15th. You'd still need an IRS, or someone else, to monitor and enforce things, but their role would be very different.

(04-13-2010 08:27 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  People complain about "social engineering".. well the US Tax Code is the #1 instrument used to bring it about.

Any serious consideration of "Tax Reform"--going to a Flat Tax-- will make the 13 months of Health Care Reform debate look like a Sunday School Picnic.

There are many "sacred cows" in the Tax Code. The Primary Residence Interest Deduction for example.

We will have to "Clean Out Congress" before any serious Tax REFORM could pass.

Not the idiot Steve Forbes flat-tax crap again. We could just as easily do our taxes on the back of a postcard with our current progressive bracket structure as we could with a flat tax. All of the complexity comes from determining how much income is to be taxed and in what way; the relative complexity of applying different rates to different slices of income is negligible.

The progressive nature of the brackets is a completely separate issue from the "social engineering" contained in the deductions/exemptions/exclusions/etc of the IRC. If you want to remove all that complexity and just go ahead and tax all income and treat it all as earned, fine by me. But the reasonable arguments for doing so have absolutely zero bearing on the merits of progressive brackets vs. a single flat rate.

(04-13-2010 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You're directly guilty of it. If you don't like being involved in it, don't do it. I don't call it "sides", because he's MY president, too... regardless of party... but rather than admit what the truth is, and that is that a minority of the country provides more than 95% of the funding for the country... you want to argue about the fact that 95% isn't "all".

Yeah.. Hambone, you're all over the place. At no point did I question that a minority of the country provides most the funding. At no point did I attempt to invalidate the article's general point about the unf'nsustainable nature of our national budgeting. Surely you're not so lazy here as to argue against strawmen of your own design.

The only thing I've contested lie in my posts above. When you pay into SS/FICA/Medicare taxes, and federal excise taxes like those on gasoline, you're paying into our 'federal imperial government'. And given the regressive nature of those taxes, they hardly go unfelt by lower/middle classes. It's therefore disingenuous to either state that these people don't pay in to the federal system, or have some skin in how it operates.

The government is truly an imperial oriented as President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to address our immediate problems of rising unemployment, falling home prices and limping credit markets, while taking a longer view in laying a strong foundation for future economic growth that benefits all Americans. We are fighting for economic recovery on all fronts.

(04-13-2010 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  The progressive nature of the brackets is a completely separate issue from the "social engineering" contained in the deductions/exemptions/exclusions/etc of the IRC. If you want to remove all that complexity and just go ahead and tax all income and treat it all as earned, fine by me. But the reasonable arguments for doing so have absolutely zero bearing on the merits of progressive brackets vs. a single flat rate.

In theory, perhaps, but in practice not entirely true.

Practical decisions are bound by the necessity to hit a revenue target. IMO that target should be at least as much as you plan to spend, but that introduces into the political process the same kind of economic and financial discipline that the profit motive introduces into the private sector, and we all know that politicians view discipline as something for everybody else, but not for themselves .

Assume you need $50 billion in revenues. If your tax base is a $1 trillion, then 5% gets it done. Reduce the tax base to $100 billion, and you need to increase the rate to 50%. Nobody is going to modify much behaviour to escape a 5% tax, but a 50% tax rate will discourage a lot of behaviour. So if you're working with the smaller base, as a matter of political reality you have to phase in the tax through graduated rates and providing exemptions to those whom the tax treats "unfairly" (ie, their lobbyists got to you). The lower you make the tax rates for part of the population, the higher they have to be for the rest. If the higher rates are assessed against those with greater latitude regarding tax decisions (the "rich"), once rates get high enough to push them toward alternatives (like shutting down or moving elsewhere) then you get decisions that are harmful to precisely the people you were trying to help.

That's why I like the 15-15-15 approach. 15% is generally not enough to discourage economic activity. It's really not enough to take too many risks to cheat on taxes.

(04-14-2010 02:14 AM)jonydeesuja Wrote:  The government is truly an imperial oriented as President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to address our immediate problems of rising unemployment, falling home prices and limping credit markets, while taking a longer view in laying a strong foundation for future economic growth that benefits all Americans. We are fighting for economic recovery on all fronts.

Hmm, let's see, the result of those "tireless efforts" have been,
1. Unemployment that is stuck at 2% higher than we were told it would be without those tireless efforts, and likely to remain there for a long time,
2. A housing market that is still in the toilet and likely to get worse rather than better as more borrowers remain unemployed and more ARMs reset and lenders remain spooked because the government's initiatives to rewrite mortgages have introduced a new risk into home lending,
3. Credit markets that are still limping at best, with the potential of cratering altogether in the wake of commercial defaults that ate expected to follow in the wake of the residential defaults,
4. A future that will be burdened by unprecedented levels of debt that appear certain to require at some point either (1) federal bankruptcy, or (2) confiscatory taxation that will halt the economy, or (3) rampant inflation as the government prints money to devalue its debt, and with it the holdings of every American.

Couldn't they have worked tirelessly on something more useful, like maybe Obama's NCAA bracket? I suppose not, at least not when the objective is "keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent, and keep 'em democrat."

(04-14-2010 01:39 AM)At Ease Wrote:  The only thing I've contested lie in my posts above. When you pay into SS/FICA/Medicare taxes, and federal excise taxes like those on gasoline, you're paying into our 'federal imperial government'. And given the regressive nature of those taxes, they hardly go unfelt by lower/middle classes. It's therefore disingenuous to either state that these people don't pay in to the federal system, or have some skin in how it operates.

If it costs you 1000 dollars per month to run your household, and your kid gives you 50 per month from a part time job, but it costs you 250 to feed and cloth him, is his liability negative or positive?

Hence, .....my point. These people have NO tax liability as they receive more than they pay in.

(04-14-2010 06:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 02:14 AM)jonydeesuja Wrote:  The government is truly an imperial oriented as President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to address our immediate problems of rising unemployment, falling home prices and limping credit markets, while taking a longer view in laying a strong foundation for future economic growth that benefits all Americans. We are fighting for economic recovery on all fronts.

Hmm, let's see, the result of those "tireless efforts" have been,
1. Unemployment that is stuck at 2% higher than we were told it would be without those tireless efforts, and likely to remain there for a long time,
2. A housing market that is still in the toilet and likely to get worse rather than better as more borrowers remain unemployed and more ARMs reset and lenders remain spooked because the government's initiatives to rewrite mortgages have introduced a new risk into home lending,
3. Credit markets that are still limping at best, with the potential of cratering altogether in the wake of commercial defaults that ate expected to follow in the wake of the residential defaults,
4. A future that will be burdened by unprecedented levels of debt that appear certain to require at some point either (1) federal bankruptcy, or (2) confiscatory taxation that will halt the economy, or (3) rampant inflation as the government prints money to devalue its debt, and with it the holdings of every American.

Couldn't they have worked tirelessly on something more useful, like maybe Obama's NCAA bracket? I suppose not, at least not when the objective is "keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent, and keep 'em democrat."

..and all that is before his policies are even implemented or other policies like Cap and Tax addressed.

BTW, I'm thinking jonydeesuja is a spammer. He fits the profile.

(04-13-2010 02:19 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

How much you wanna bet he has this exact tatoos on his arm?

(04-14-2010 01:39 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You're directly guilty of it. If you don't like being involved in it, don't do it. I don't call it "sides", because he's MY president, too... regardless of party... but rather than admit what the truth is, and that is that a minority of the country provides more than 95% of the funding for the country... you want to argue about the fact that 95% isn't "all".

Yeah.. Hambone, you're all over the place. At no point did I question that a minority of the country provides most the funding. At no point did I attempt to invalidate the article's general point about the unf'nsustainable nature of our national budgeting. Surely you're not so lazy here as to argue against strawmen of your own design.

The only thing I've contested lie in my posts above. When you pay into SS/FICA/Medicare taxes, and federal excise taxes like those on gasoline, you're paying into our 'federal imperial government'. And given the regressive nature of those taxes, they hardly go unfelt by lower/middle classes. It's therefore disingenuous to either state that these people don't pay in to the federal system, or have some skin in how it operates.

How exactly am I all over the place? I'd say the same about you. My complaint with your statement is that you consider what amounts to forced savings as an equivalent somehow to income tax. I don't see asking someone to pay $10,000 into SSI when they expect to get a multiple of that out a "tax". You are free to disagree... but it's not the same as getting nothing... and not the same as having your taxes go to fund the military. Despite the fact that SSI, Medicaire and FICA is "invested" in the debt of the US, which covers everything, there is an account with your name on it, AND medicaid, expecting to deliver benefits to you specifically. I am unaware that when I pay income taxes, that some of that money goes into an account for me to be given to me later. I never said they had no skin in the entire financing system of the US government... I simply said (or at least meant) that they had no skin in most of these major programs/reforms. Their only (or at least their vastly primary) interest lies on the benefit side of the equation. A gas tax or a cigarette tax or whatever is certainly regressive, but it is meant to discourage consumption or pay for something directly related to its use... like roads or cance research. I don't agree with them, but we're being given more, not less of them

More to the point... In a bill that expands medicaid by up to $1 trillion dollars, we aren't really making an adjustment to the mechanism set up to fund it... OF COURSE 49% of the population is in favor of a massive expansion in medicaid... BECAUSE THEY AREN"T HAVING TO PAY FOR IT. I fail to recognize a straw man here. Just because I don't say John Smith of 222 Happy Street doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean I'm creating a fictional situation, and you know it. Accuse me of being lazy about that? Hardly.

As Rebel points out... there are a number of people with no income tax liability who recieve "benefits' far in excess of their contributions to FICA/SS/Medicaid. Since you don't like generalizations, how much do the unemployed "pay" into this system? Do you deny that there are people reaping benifits who have never themselves paid into it? Single unemployed teenage moms who are actually encouraged to move out of their family home and on their own because their benefits increase?

Using Healthcare as the question, to avoid your accusation... and generalizing for expedience, not being "lazy"...

Any family making less than $88,000/yr will get free or at least subsidized healthcare. There is a decent chunk of that group who will pay nothing more than they are already paying and yet get more. Where do you think they generally stand on the proposal? How do you think they'd feel about having to pay $25/month or even $5/month to get something worth $500/month?? How about a $5 copay?? Many would see the value and do it, but not all. For some, they'd rather have the $25.

The point I'm making is... when something is free, why would you EVER vote against it? When something costs you a little money, you will consider whether or not it is necessary... even if the benefit FAR outweighs the cost to you.

I could be wrong, but I am unaware of any adjustment to the medicaid rate for ALL payors to pay for an expansion of medicaid... which makes NO sense to me... I'm betting that if congress had proposed that the medicaid rate go up by a slight percentage, augmented by a tax increase on the rich including uncapping it, that there would be at least SOME people... and perhaps a large number of people currently in support of it who wouldn't be. While you may or may not support something like that for healthcare, there are similar examples throughout our system.

One of the things I try and teach my son is that NOTHING is free. Basic fiscal responsibility. That there is a cost to coming to dad and asking for $100, or $10 or a concert ticket or whatever. NEVER is that cost in any way equal to the value... but NOTHING is free. He has to wash my car... to do laundry... SOMETHING. He asks for what he needs, and what he wants. The bigger the ask, the bigger the "cost" and the bigger the subsidy... I.E, If he wants $20 for the movies, he has to wash my car. Perhaps a $10 subsidy. If he wants a new Mac, he has to pay the first $100... a $900 subsidy. Some might argue that I'm getting a tax break on the Mac... 10% instead of 50%... but that isn't really how you would personally look at that situation, is it?? Only politicians think like this.

If instead I told him that taking this $20 or $1000 out of my pocket reduces my retirement income in the future, which may mean that I'll have to will him less money when I die, do you think that would change his habits?

We cry and moan that our kids need to be learning how to manage credit and balance a checkbook in high school, but we don't expect the same of our politicians, and we don't encourage it through our tax system.

I think we should.

This should be a crime. Why can't federal, state and local government employees fund their own retirements to some extent?

Quote:Federal employee retirement benefits: $1,018 per household

(04-14-2010 02:14 AM)jonydeesuja Wrote:  The government is truly an imperial oriented as President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to address our immediate problems of rising unemployment, falling home prices and limping credit markets, while taking a longer view in laying a strong foundation for future economic growth that benefits all Americans. We are fighting for economic recovery on all fronts.

"Our?" "We?"

Isn't your president Pratibha Patil?

(04-14-2010 07:32 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  This should be a crime. Why can't federal, state and local government employees fund their own retirements to some extent?

Quote:Federal employee retirement benefits: $1,018 per household

The California Public Employees Pension and the California Teachers Retirement Pension are now massively underfunded.

I remember back when crude was $130+ they were really heavy into futures. I guess they got hit when the bottom dropped out.