• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

People's Budget.

Do you support the People's Budget?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • No.

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • Unsure.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
I support this 100% of the way. How could one not support it?
 
No vote, yet..
I read "all the right words".....not good.
I see no opposition from our radical-right, as least not yet. If the tea baggers are against this, then it might be good.
I do feel that one of the problems is that our wealthy are under taxed; but then reform must truly occur before this can be addressed.
A balanced budget, is, IMO, not necessary.
What is necessary is elimination of all waste.
 
I think it's ok. I have to disagree with the business plans, though. The good part about the defense plan is that we can stay on the sidelines in Afghanistan.
 
There are some things I would change, but on the whole I think this says what needs to be said. We can't keep fixing our public woes with duct tape, and everyone needs to do their part, not just the lower and middle classes. I would add vocational training to the education list and try to create a centralized job placement system. People want to work, and need to work. We should do whatever we can get them the training they need, and then get them into a job. The system we have now with finding ads and help wanted lists, resumes, and interviews... It's an awful system. We need something much more comprehensive, and much more centralized. We need to get people to the jobs.
 
Kandahar said:
Most of them serve no legitimate purpose in the tax code, and they're just handouts to some special interest or another. I mean, does the federal government really have any interest in encouraging employers to include commute costs in the employee's compensation? Or encouraging people to take out mortgages they can't afford? Or encouraging biomass fuels? If so, are those goals worth the cost? These itemized deductions are virtually indistinguishable from traditional government spending (except they're usually far less efficient at actually helping people).
Click to expand...



Actually, they do serve a purpose. Without them, there's no way that a business could stay alive. Allow me to post the example that I posted for Boo.


apdst said:
You can't tax the gross income. It won't work. How many times do you have to told that?

Example:

a business earns a gross income of $100,000 a year.

The business spends approximately $80,000 on operating costs. (payroll, equipment, repairs, etc.)

That company falls into the 34% tax bracket, per the U.S. tax code, which means they will have to pay $34,000 in taxes with your new and improved tax code.

$80,000 + $34,000 = $114,000 and the company only makes $100,000 to begin with.

I would love for you to explain to us how that's supposed to be a good idea, unless your mission is to destroy private businesses, that is.

You've simplified the tax code, alright...there won't be anyone left to tax! :lamo
Click to expand...


Furthermore, they needlessly complicate the tax code and greatly increase compliance costs. If we're going to have any deductions in the tax code, they should be used VERY sparingly. About the only ones I'd allow would be charitable deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Click to expand...

The first step would be to learn the difference between a deduction and a credit.

It will never cease to amaze me how people, who claim to be so much smarter, more educated and more sophisticated than the rest of us can't understand the purpose of deducting the cost of doing business.

You do realize that you wouldn't have your high-speed 6 figure job, if not for those deductions. Yes?
 
Paschendale said:
There are some things I would change, but on the whole I think this says what needs to be said. We can't keep fixing our public woes with duct tape, and everyone needs to do their part, not just the lower and middle classes.
Click to expand...

The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.


I would add vocational training to the education list and try to create a centralized job placement system. People want to work, and need to work. We should do whatever we can get them the training they need, and then get them into a job. The system we have now with finding ads and help wanted lists, resumes, and interviews... It's an awful system. We need something much more comprehensive, and much more centralized. We need to get people to the jobs.
Click to expand...


Paid for by the government, no less. Right?

If a person doesn't have the nads to get out, learn a trade and find a job on their own, no amount of government spending is going to do it for them.
 
apdst said:
The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.
Click to expand...

yes they do. We've posted those links many times showing your error.
 
apdst said:
Actually, they do serve a purpose. Without them, there's no way that a business could stay alive. Allow me to post the example that I posted for Boo.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about sole proprietorships here; the way they are taxed is mostly OK with me. Basically, the IRS treats their *net* profit the same way it treats personal income. So you aren't taxed on your gross revenue, just what you make above and beyond your expenses. And if you operate at a loss, you can carry it over to apply it to next year's taxes.

What I'm referring to are the ITEMIZED deductions...all of those things in the tax code that the government (supposedly) put in there in order to get people to behave a certain way. While I'm not inherently opposed to economic nudges like this, when they're included in the income tax code they rarely have the desired result. For example, the mortgage interest deduction is expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it helps encourage real estate bubbles). Ditto for the deduction on employer-provided health insurance...it's expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it confines people to jobs they hate, reduces worker productivity, and reduces social mobility).

We should eliminate nearly all of these deductions.

The first step would be to learn the difference between a deduction and a credit.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll get right on that. :roll:
My point is that the entire tax code could be drastically simplified, and the vast majority of these things could be eliminated entirely...exemptions, exclusions, deductions, AND credits. I could write a better tax code in 2 pages in MS Word, than what we currently have.

It will never cease to amaze me how people, who claim to be so much smarter, more educated and more sophisticated than the rest of us can't understand the purpose of deducting the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

The cost of doing business as a sole proprietorship or partnership is not really an itemized deduction (it's a separate tax form entirely). Your profit is treated the same as your income would be, if you were working for someone else. As it should be.

You do realize that you wouldn't have your high-speed 6 figure job, if not for those deductions. Yes?
Click to expand...

Actually I imagine it'd be much easier to get clients if businesses didn't need to waste money on entire accounting departments focusing on rent-seeking behavior, just to comply with tax laws and/or find creative ways to avoid them. That would free up a lot more capital to buy my services. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Lower class persons don't pay any income taxes. Sorry for your fail.
Click to expand...

And why is that apdst?

but even in making that allegation you engage in the intellectual dishonesty of moving the goal posts. First it was that lower classes pay no taxes


The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.
Click to expand...


.......... then you shift to income taxes when called out on it by Boo. Please stick to one.
 
Last edited:
I don't support this. It has some things I agree with but not enough to win my support. It also doesn't seem to do anything about shrinking government, cutting government waste, and reforming social programs and abuse of these programs. Also, I'm not fond of raising taxes above what they currently are.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not talking about sole proprietorships here; the way they are taxed is mostly OK with me. Basically, the IRS treats their *net* profit the same way it treats personal income. So you aren't taxed on your gross revenue, just what you make above and beyond your expenses. And if you operate at a loss, you can carry it over to apply it to next year's taxes.

What I'm referring to are the ITEMIZED deductions...all of those things in the tax code that the government (supposedly) put in there in order to get people to behave a certain way. While I'm not inherently opposed to economic nudges like this, when they're included in the income tax code they rarely have the desired result. For example, the mortgage interest deduction is expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it helps encourage real estate bubbles). Ditto for the deduction on employer-provided health insurance...it's expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it confines people to jobs they hate, reduces worker productivity, and reduces social mobility).

We should eliminate nearly all of these deductions.
Click to expand...

Dude! How do you think that net profit is arrived at?



Thanks, I'll get right on that. :roll:
My point is that the entire tax code could be drastically simplified, and the vast majority of these things could be eliminated entirely...exemptions, exclusions, deductions, AND credits. I could write a better tax code in 2 pages in MS Word, than what we currently have.
Click to expand...

I could write a better one with one sentence: you'll pay X% on your net income. End of story.



The cost of doing business as a sole proprietorship or partnership is not really an itemized deduction (it's a separate tax form entirely). Your profit is treated the same as your income would be, if you were working for someone else. As it should be.
Click to expand...

Well, actually there are some: state and local taxes/fees. I write off my heavy road use tax that I file on form 2290. Yes, I write off my federal tax on my 1040. I write off the mileage I rack up on my personal vehicle. I also rent my personal vehicle to my business and write that off, too. Interest payments. Without those deductions, there's no way I could afford to stay in business.
 
haymarket said:
And why is that apdst?

but even in making that allegation you engage in the intellectual dishonesty of moving the goal posts. First it was that lower classes pay no taxes





.......... then you shift to income taxes when called out on it by Boo. Please stick to one.
Click to expand...

Isn't the whole issue about income taxes? Certainly, you're not saying that rich folks should pay more sales taxes than poor people. Correct?

I'm quite sure you don't want to get into a dick measuring contest over who pays the most in sales and property taxes: rich vs. poor. I think you would already know that that would be a loser for your side.
 
apdst said:
Dude! How do you think that net profit is arrived at?
Click to expand...

Revenue minus expenses. Next.

I could write a better one with one sentence: you'll pay X% on your net income. End of story.
Click to expand...

So then you agree with me that we don't need itemized deductions? Why are you arguing the point then?

Well, actually there are some: state and local taxes/fees. I write off my heavy road use tax that I file on form 2290. Yes, I write off my federal tax on my 1040. I write off the mileage I rack up on my personal vehicle. I also rent my personal vehicle to my business and write that off, too. Interest payments. Without those deductions, there's no way I could afford to stay in business.
Click to expand...

If those other taxes are part of your cost of doing business, then they'd be included in your expenses (and therefore your taxable net income would be lowered accordingly). Basically, the IRS just tries to make the self-employed pay the same taxes they'd be paying if they were working elsewhere, which is fair as far as I'm concerned.
 
Kandahar said:
Revenue minus expenses. Next.
Click to expand...

Right and itemized deductions = expenses.



So then you agree with me that we don't need itemized deductions? Why are you arguing the point then?
Click to expand...

You know how many middle income people you would hurt without itemized deductions?



If those other taxes are part of your cost of doing business, then they'd be included in your expenses (and therefore your taxable net income would be lowered accordingly). Basically, the IRS just tries to make the self-employed pay the same taxes they'd be paying if they were working elsewhere, which is fair as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Is that why the self employed have to pay the self employment tax and don't qualify for tax credits like people, working elsewhere?
 
apdst said:
Right and itemized deductions = expenses.
Click to expand...

No, I am referring to the deductions that cover specific KINDS of expenses. For example, if the government decided (for who-knows-what reason) that it was in society's best interests for you to buy your employees donuts every Friday, so they made a special provision in the tax code that allowed you to deduct the cost of donuts for your employees (beyond treating it as a normal cost of doing business)...THAT is the type of deduction that I'm referring to. If we're just talking about taking your revenues and subtracting your expenses, that's perfectly fine with me.

Granted, it's a little bit messier for businesses than for employees, because there is always a gray area between what is a legitimate cost of business, and what is a personal expense (i.e. attending a conference that happened to be located in a Caribbean resort). So the IRS has to have *some* guidelines for those types of issues. But generally they should treat sole proprietors no differently than they treat employees, when it comes to personal deductions.

You know how many middle income people you would hurt without itemized deductions?
Click to expand...

You just said you wanted to tax everyone X% on their net income, period. Make up your mind.
To answer your question: not many. Overall, the deductions in our tax code are regressive. There are some SPECIFIC deductions that are progressive, but drastically simplifying the tax code would be a net positive for the middle-class...many of whom just take the standard deduction anyway.

Is that why the self employed have to pay the self employment tax and don't qualify for tax credits like people, working elsewhere?
Click to expand...

The self-employment tax compensates for the fact that they don't pay payroll taxes on their own income. It is exactly the same percentage as the payroll taxes would be. As for employee tax credits, I'm not sure which ones you're specifically referring to...but generally speaking, they are part of the problem and should be eliminated too. Except for the EITC, which is one of the best anti-poverty programs we have IMO.
 
Phys251 said:
This is way, way too sensible of a plan to ever have a chance in Washington.
Click to expand...

Thank God that there are enough people to see the idiocy of this plan, for it to become reality.

It's nothing more than a list of age old Libbo talking points.
 
apdst said:
Thank God that there are enough people to see the idiocy of this plan, for it to become reality.

It's nothing more than a list of age old Libbo talking points.
Click to expand...

Why is it idiotic, by chance?
 
apdst said:
Thank God that there are enough people to see the idiocy of this plan, for it to become reality.

It's nothing more than a list of age old Libbo talking points.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that using a nasty and demeaning nickname for people makes you seem more credible? And before the obvious and stupid answer, the tea partiers themselves coined the term teabagger, without knowing the testicular meaning for it.
 
Paschendale said:
Do you really think that using a nasty and demeaning nickname for people makes you seem more credible? And before the obvious and stupid answer, the tea partiers themselves coined the term teabagger, without knowing the testicular meaning for it.
Click to expand...

You think I give a ****? I'm going to be labled a racist, because I oppose Obama and all other Libbo politicos, anyway.
 
apdst said:
Right! And the discussion is about income taxes. I'm not the one moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Your quote was about taxes, and as has been pointed out to you a few times, income taxes is not the only way people pay taxes. So, not paying one tax doesn't mean all that much. :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom