The Truth about who can afford to pay Taxes

Cart before the horse. No amount of tax reform is going to add up to anything at all until we fix the spending issue.

KevinKohler said:

Cart before the horse. No amount of tax reform is going to add up to anything at all until we fix the spending issue.

Click to expand...

You can't move anything without the Cart And the Horse.
Most of it Will probably have to be cuts.

But Revenues are at all time lows relative to GDP (app 15%). The budget, of course, is a two-sided issue and there's No reason we can't start balancing using either side or both at once.

KevinKohler said:

Cart before the horse. No amount of tax reform is going to add up to anything at all until we fix the spending issue.

Click to expand...

No amount of spending fix is going to add up to anything without some tax reform. I think there are going to have to be some direct tradeoffs between the two, for both economic and political reasons.

The type of tradeoffs that we might realistically see is the left dropping the concept of allowing the Bush tax cuts on earned income to expire, in exchange for taxing passive income (capital gains) exactly like earned income. And simultainiously cutting the duration of welfare benefits by 30% while eleminating tax loopholes for the rich. And reducing the length of time that the unemployed can draw unemployment benefits while combining redundant government spending programs and eleminating all earmarks and pork. Eleminating corporate tax deductions and loopholes while reducing the corporate tax rate.

For every cut in government, there may need to be a more or less equal cut in taxes to offset the economic problems (unemployment) that cutting government spending will cause. And for every cut in tax rates there may need to be a cut in deductions as to not cause our tax revenue to plummet. It's all about tradeoffs and ballancing.

mbig said:

Since taxes aren't going Down overall as we need more revenue (as well as cuts), I would think you would be at least satisfied (in a fairness kind of way) to have the '15% crowd' pay what you have said you're paying; app 35%.

You really can't get anymore from people who make 20-30k a year without further hurting the economy.
That's his point and it's true.

Click to expand...

the point that is missed is we need those people to have proper feedback as to the cost of government. Those not paying income taxes have no incentive to reign in spending or decrease taxes on others. only when they get zapped everytime politicians spend more money will the masses reject the pandering directed at them by big spenders

TurtleDude said:

the point that is missed is we need those people to have proper feedback as to the cost of government. Those not paying income taxes have no incentive to reign in spending or decrease taxes on others. only when they get zapped everytime politicians spend more money will the masses reject the pandering directed at them by big spenders

Click to expand...

from Turtle post 1222

Yawn-same crap different day.

Click to expand...

nuff said.

mbig said:

The Income tax WAS Designed originally to tax the top 1% as the Income of the Robber Barons of the early 20th C was so far and away above everyone else's.
More recently, ie 2007, the Income of the top 25 Hedge fund Managers, ie, Averaged....... $877,000,000 EACH.
Let's lower their income taxes to 25% (from 35%) and raise the bottom/Walmarters (who can barely afford to drive to work) from 15% to 25% to pay for it???????

Historical income tax rates:

It seems any attempt to return to historical Norms is "Class warfare"... when in Fact "There has been class warfare, and my side is winning" - Warren Buffett.

The problem is oft here - young idealogues/partisans who have no history- just Hannity.

Click to expand...

The states from where these GOP supporters drive this tax platform are from states that has had lactose spending in the budgets on their state level. Maybe a cap on states of how long they can receive federal welfare assistance of only being able to receive 5 years of above 90-95% of federal dollars received from that state. Just like the Clinton's welfare reform put a clock in place for how long people can receive welfare payments from the government. It at least lets the rest of the country know that state won't be on some big government federal welfare program of fund distribution after a certain date. It would also stop "can kicking" to bring these states with out of control spending at the state level pass leaner budgets and help curve those state's spending to get there fiscal house in order.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the states that have better economic policies to have to carry the burden other mismanaged states. It would also resonate louder to that states voters that looking at a new rep may be a not such a bad idea.

This could cut so much spending at the government level, you may even find a tax cut for everyone somewhere.
I posted 3 links that show federal dollars sent to states vs those states return to the government. You can search for more using your favorite search engine.

The Federal Aid Jackpot: States That Receive The Most Federal Assistance (PHOTOS)

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State

Red-State Moochers: Federal Taxes Favor Those Who Complain the Most About Federal Taxes « SpeakEasy

PS:FEMA payments would not be counted against those states welfare clock.

Opps, forgot my point.

It is all greed driven and the ones with most money are defiantly winning in more areas than just one.

barbarian_style said:

Opps, forgot my point.

It is all greed driven and the ones with most money are defiantly winning in more areas than just one.

Click to expand...

(Hat Tip Catawba)

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the bottom 2/3 of the country, the average income is $31,718, and the average expenditures on necessities total $28,283. In other words, for two out of three families in America, after food, shelter, transportation, clothing, health care and insurance are paid for, there's only $3,345 left over to spend on things like education, entertainment, savings ... and, oh yes, investing.

By comparison, the average family in the top 5% brings home $228,585, and spends $101,247 on the same necessities. At the end of the year, this leaves them $127,338 -- more than 38 times as much -- to put into Discretionary items like investing."

How Can You Get Romney's Tax Rate? (Hint: You Can't) - DailyFinance

Yeah, let's tax that last/only $3,000 of the bottom 2/3 of the population away with a 'Flat/Fair Tax' and decrease the tax on the top few percent.
That'll be good for the economy/humanity.