Geothermal heating -- worth considering?

[krw]

That's worked out *so* well over the last four years. You are one sick puppy, but all lefties are.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

You're confusing top marginal tax rates with the total percentage of a persons income that they pay in taxes. Sure the top marginal tax rate was 70% before Reagan. But almost no one was paying any where near 70% of their total income in taxes. See the difference?

That's why Republicans are in favor of simplyfing and flattening the tax code so that there are less brackets, less exemptions, etc. Why have games where the top rate is 70%, then pile on all the loopholes and deductions so that the vast majority, including the rich, wind up paying

20% or 25% anyway? Think hard, maybe you'll figure it out.

[The Daring Dufas]

Um, Han my friend, I like you so I would never call you names but I thought Democrats had the whole government there for a while and still didn't pass a budget. O_o

TDD

[The Daring Dufas]

P.L.L.C.F., Progressive Liberal Leftists Commiecrat Freak/s. The acronym saves a lot of typing. ^_^

TDD

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The progressivity was there for a reason, and (IMO) should remain. Flattening those rates would fall unfairly on lower paid people, whose take home has suffered the most during the recent fiscal crises. Flattening rates /sounds/ great to make everyone pay their fair share, but one has to have a certain minimum expendable income, if only to protect purchasing power of the masses that drives the economy.

Bleed the lower incomes dry, and there is no more economy, except for booze and guns. (grin)

The loopholes and deductions have stayed in place (except interest paid on credit was removed as a deduction decades ago IIRC), but the tax rates were lowered. I am all for reducing the loopholes and deductions, but you'll have a hard time removing mortgage interest, property and state income taxes as deductibles. Could perhaps be done by setting limits as to the absolute dollar amounts that are deductible, and setting in stone those limits so they could not be adjusted for inflation. That would be an impetus for high tax states (such as in my area) to be reined in. But I won't be holding my breath on the latter.

[Han]

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:k47kol$s6a$ [e-mail]:

Apparently the Dems had that "supermajority" (filibuster-proofing the Senate by having 60 votes) for only 130 or so days. Not that that totally absolves from assisting with the mess.

I believe many people (unfortunately) liked the idea of making Obama a

1-term president, and did their best to be obstructionist and are/were proud of it. It didn't help anyone though, because pressure was put on any Dems who wanted to try compromise, not to do so. Hence the do-nothing Congress of the last years. I'm not condoning the Dems tactics, but I do think Boehner and McConnell are to blame as the leaders. Note that I really don't love Pelosi or Reid either. But I believe it was the Republican announced and executed strategies that were responsible for instigating and perpetuating the mess.

Hopefully Nov 7 will show us where we really stand next year.

[Han]

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:k47m66$27e$ [e-mail]:

Well then I am a PLLFC ...Fiscal conservative. Let's discuss what can be done together, rather than telling the other side to play possum. I think that getting people to work and getting the economy humming is first priority. Then simplifying the tax code and raising effective revenue (the US has just about the lowest revenue as % of GDP in the world, I just read somewhere - have to get details, and don't know whether that includes state taxes).

Off to dinner at the Dutch House Tavern ... Keep the economy going ...

[HeyBub]

Some would say the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because the poor use more government services. Sure, the rich are sometimes driven on public roads and their Gulfstreams navigate through federally-controlled airspace, but they don't send their kids to government schools, get treated at the county hospital, and have private guards instead of relying on the local police.

It adds up.

[HeyBub]

It would be far easier for the Republicans to pick up four senate seats.

[Tony Hwang]

Hmmm, Poor memory or short memory, folks, your economy started unraveling from Nixon/Greenspan era onward. So what is new?

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

You can't see the forest for the trees. The rich people, for the most part, were never paying 70%. With today's rates of

35%, they aren't paying that. Romney paid 14% last year. Over the last decade, he's averaged 20%. Obama paid 23% last year. I'll bet most of the folks here wind up paying about that rate. So what exactly is wrong with having a flat tax of say 20% on all income and getting rid of most of the exemptions. Except of course for removing the class warfare aspect and the fiction that libs have that they are socking it to the rich.....

As for the people suffering, for the most part, it's not an issue of taxes. It's an issue of failed economic policies that have resulted in high unemployment. Those people aren't paying taxes at all.

Who is proposing to bleed the lower income people dry? You could simply exempt people below a certain threshold from paying taxes at all. Just like 49% don't pay taxes today, nothing says that with a flatter tax, less loopholes, less exemptions, they have to pay tax either.

Actually the loopholes and deductions have all been pretty much screwed with in one fashion or another over the years. Most recently deductions for green energy, energy efficiency come to mind.

That's the difference between a lib and a conservative. Conservatives are in favor of reducing loopholes and deductions ONLY IF it's combined with lower tax rates.

That's already been done with mortgage interest, for example. Also the alternative minimum tax, another monstrosity, effectively eliminates most other deductions for many tax payers.

Now why on earth would you do that? If anything all of it should be INDEXED to inflation.

=A0>That would be

What does not adjusting for inflation at the federal level have to do with controlling taxes at the state level?

[The Daring Dufas]

If the P.L.L.C.F. keep yapping about tax rates instead of gross amount of taxes paid by gazillionares, the evil rich should say OK, since we pay more money than you do, we should premium concierge service from law enforcement, fire departments, road maintenance, sanitation services, etc. ^_^

TDD

[Han]

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:k482v4$he1$ [e-mail]:

Who pays for secret service protection?

[Douglas Johnson]

Don't have to think hard. It is so the congress critters of both stripes can pass out favors to their contributors. It also provides high paid, American jobs for lawyers and accountants. Who could be against that?

-- Doug

[The Daring Dufas]

Han, I have friends who are diametrically opposed in our political beliefs and we call each other horrible names and trade extreme insults but we're still friends because we believe you're free to believe what you wish and don't try to force our beliefs on one another. It's the same way with religion, I actually had a dear friend who was a Moonie. I know a number of Muslims but can't claim to be a dear friend to any of them because of their tenets. ^_^

TDD

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Exactly, and I think they should pay more.

I doubt it, I think they said he never paid less than 13-14%.

That is probably indeed fiction, because the rich have access to all the deductions.

Unemployment and underemployment are important problems to address, but the majority of the 46% of households not paying federal taxes are elderly, students and people who are working at wage rates that make them not eligible to pay federal taxes.

But then you have not a flat tax anymore, you have at a minimum 2 rates, zero and your 20%. If the borderline is at say $50,000, I would assume that only the excess over 50K will be taxed, giving you in effect floating rates.

That is how all deductions and credits started, as an incentive to invest in one form or another. At the time a majority in Congress thought it was a good idea. Since ther is no automatic sunset, it stays and becomes infinitely more complicated each year.

I would regard that as a small difference in opinion. I think revenue should cover the expenditures, and am all in favor of simplifying the life of the clerks, and reducing their numbers. We do need a balance to reduce the deficit. So now Mitt is saying not to expect any increase in net income, because the lower tax rate is going to set off with reduced loopholes. Since the loopholes are mostly "enjoyed" by the folks with higher incomes, he seems to be saying he is indeed trying to sock it to the rich, or am I now fooling myself with thoughts of Mitt the Socialist?

Those limits are rather high I think, on regular mortgages. I only have a Heloc, so I know that if my balance goes over 100K, I must limit the deduction. No notion of the other limts if any. I thought perhaps only interest on primary residence?

I thought you wanted to cut out loopholes and deductions? In some oher countries, mortgage interest isn't deductible, so perhaps we are an anomaly (but we have higher home ownership I think). Anyway, it should be possible to phase out the home mortgage deductions, if we really wanted. One way would be to not index to inflation the deductions for state/local taxes and mortgage interest.

Currently NY etc are very much in favor of deductibility of state taxes on the federal tax return, because that makes their high state and local taxes less unpalatable. If there were an upper limit to deductibility, it would put pressure on state and local government to reduce the rate of increases in state taxes. But as I said, I am not holding my breath on that.

[Han]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:ceOdnSHBEoBe4PrNnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Seems unlikely at the moment ...

[Han]

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:k4854m$rm0$ [e-mail]:

+1.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

Of course you do, because you're a lib. The top 5% of taxpayers currently pay 60% of the total tax burden. But you bitch on, like they are paying little. That sure looks to me like a very progressive tax system. Here's a question I've seen libs asked over and over again and they never answer. What percent of their total income should those in say the top 5% pay?

Of course you doubt it. Like most libs, you're ignorant of the most basic facts and hence can't form sound opinions:

"Along with the candidate's 2011 tax returns, the campaign has posted a letter from Romneys tax preparer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, summarizing Romney's tax rates from 1990 to 2009.

The letter claims that Romney's average federal income tax rate over those 20 years was 20.20%; that the lowest rate Romney paid was 13.66%; and that there were no years during which Romney did not owe both federal and state income taxes. And then he gave away an additional 30% to charity. Joe Biden who earned $370K, gave away a whopping $5500, that's

1.4%.

BTW, when can we expect an apology from the village idiot Harry Reid who claimed Romney paid no taxes?

So, you'd rather live with that fiction and have a convoluted tax code full of all kinds of exemptions, deductions, loopholes that results in people paying 20%, rather than just have a simple one page tax form that gets people there directly. It would also fix what Obama and Buffet have been bitching about, ie the rich paying a lower rate than some middle class taxpayers. But no, that isn't good enough for dyed in the wool libs. You'd prefer to live with the fiction, tilt at windmills, because you can keep trying to use class warfareto divide the country.

And yet you bitch that the tax system is not progressive. You have the bottom 46% paying nothing. The top 5% are paying 60% of the total tax burden. Go figure. I say one big mistake Bush made was allowing more people to avoid paying taxes all together. They should be paying something, even if it's only $500. That way everyone has some stake in the tax system. Instead we're building a whole class of people that libs can pander to, promise more stuff to, and they don't give a damn about it's cost or consequences because they don't have to help pay for any of it.

Read up on the various flat tax proposals that have been made through the years by leading Republicans. I don't know a single one that ever called for taxing all income starting at zero. Romney is in favor of a flat tax, or a flatter tax, but he sure isn't proposing to start taxing anyone starting with dollar one. You really, really need to educate yourself.

=A0>If the borderline is at say $50,000, I would assume

WTF is a "floating rate"? That would be a flat tax starting at $50K.

No shit Sherlock. And it creates economic distortions. You think just maybe part of the reason for the housing boom and bust was that homes receive special tax treatment? That you can make profits there and not have it taxed? That the interest, property taxes are deductible? That's a classic example of the economic distortions that a screwed up tax system produces. Yet, you embrace it. Go figure.

Mitt is doing the same basic math I gave you. That is that a hell of a lot of people wind up paying about 20% or so in overall taxes. That is exactly what Romney himself has averaged over the last decade. It's what Obama paid last year. It's probably what most of us here paid. So, let's get rid of all the nonsense and just have a 20% tax on income above a certain minimum.

Geeez. Now indexing tax brackets or deductions for inflation is a loophole? It's just keeping them CONSTANT in real dollar terms. Following that logic, I suppose we should eliminate the yearly COLA adjustment to social security too. But this is a trick straight out of the lib play book. They pass a new tax to screw the rich, promising how it's gonna fix the deficit, etc. Then over the years inflation pushes middle class taxpayers into the taxes that were supposed to hit only the rich. And of course it doesn't do a damn thing to solve the deficit, because the politicians just spend even more.

This is a good example of lib thinking. Instead of SIMPLYFYING the existing tax system, you want to make it even more convoluted. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Neither am I. And it's such a second order effect, that only a lib would come up with the dumb idea to begin with.

[HeyBub]

Exactly! The elderly, students, and people working at lower wage rates SHOULD pay income taxes.

Yep. Taxes are levied for two reasons:

1) To raise revenue, and 2) To discourage certain social inclinations (i.e., most excise taxes).

Tax exemptions are implemented also for two reasons:

1) The exempted activity is more efficient than the government would be, or 2) To encourage certain social goals, i.e., home ownership

Then, too, the states with no income tax (there are seven) are at a disadvantage. Most rely on a sales or property tax for the equivalent revenue and just absorb the disadvantage.