OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

[Kurt Ullman]

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then, SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using their credit cards.

[Kurt Ullman]

Maybe not. The estimated compliance costs (bookkeeping, time taken to get the stuff together and fill out the forms, filing help from H&R Block to a Big 8 Accounting firm, etc.) was estimated at $391.1 billion in 2009. As of 2009 the income-tax industry employed more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies--more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel Service, McDonald's, International Business Machines, and Citigroup combined. Researchers from the Fair Tax Blog note that complying with the federal income tax code amounts to imposing a 22.2-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. The compliance costs are said to be highly regressive.

[trader4]

Yeah, I thought claiming that the home mortgage deduction is welfare for the banks was a big stretch too. If you want to claim that, then as you point out, you can make all kinds of similar claims that are a big stretch too.

[Stormin Mormon]

I'm asking, gently, your political leaning. If the name is not accurate, please tell me how you describe yourself.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

As long as you can fall back on what amounts to name calling, you don't even need to put together logical sentences.

[Stormin Mormon]

I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less government theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you view tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view. Yes? If not, please tell us your actual views.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes but one of them is welfare for banks.

[Dan Espen]

Interesting how you just turned "multiple purposes but one of them is welfare" into "is really welfare".

Does SS help out banks? What do you think?

[Dan Espen]

See my other post.

Sure you can distort anyone's words.

The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's PBS Newshour.

The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction as "encouraging home ownership". The people that would fight repeal were home builders and banks.

[Dan Espen]

No you started with 3 labels that most people consider pejoratives.

dyed in the wool liberal socialist

I'd vote for Chris Christi for governor. I like the job he's doing but I normally vote Democrat. I'm neither dyed in the wool, liberal nor socialist.

As you should know, the Democratic Party has been capitalist for a long time.

[Dan Espen]

Getting toward my limit of replying to top posting.

We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits. Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?

I'm for less government intrusion too!

The government is stealing my money when they waste it. Like they do with the military, DEA, TSA, and countless other agencies. Unfortunately, neither party is going to reduce the size of government. History has proven that.

What's needed from candidates are specific proposals. Hear Romney's last "secret" speech? He had no clue what he would cut.

[trader4]

Sorry, but the Democratic party today IS liberal and is becoming more liberal each year. The days of democrats like JFK, Truman, and Patrick Moynihan are long gone.

You sure wouldn't know that from listening to the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a long, long list of them.

[trader4]

That's reassuring.

I see your problem. You're impressed with "experts" that the media puts forth. Most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. An "expert" is any damn fool who's opinion supports the way they want to tell a story.

Here's my expert take. The "corporate welfare" mantra is a good example of where you and Democrats are coming from today. By trying to call anything and everything welfare, you seek to legitimze handing out money to people for doing nothing, which is what real welfare is and at the same time, you get to attack capitalism. Yes, the banks benefit from issuing more mortgages. So, do lumber companies, electricians, HD, and the taxpayers using that particular deduction. Are they all on welfare too? Feel free to consult with your talking head.....

[trader4]

Bingo! It's just like the Democrats saying, this tax cut will "cost" us this much money. Like it was their money all along. But you can't blame them. That is actually how they look at it.

[Doug Miller]

Dan Espen wrote in news: [e-mail]:

That's true only for wage or salary income. Someone with an income of, say, $200K annually from investments pays a substantially *lower* percentage than someone with an income of $150K from salary.

Which, of course, is exactly the point: everyone pays the same *rate*.

No, because they're paying a *lower* rate now.

[Dan Espen]

NO!

You think I put "experts" in quotes for fun?

No, an expert in this case is someone that convinces the staff of the PBS Newshour that they are knowledgeable on the subject. If you'd like to research the subject and post your results go ahead.

I don't have to.

First the traditional welfare system that you are ranting about was scaled back a long time ago with the help of Newt and company. I'm fine with that. I'm also open to further reforms.

Second, if you don't believe me, remember Dwight Eisenhower. He warned all of us about what was going to happen. We give 3 billion in aid to some country and it turns out it's 3 billion to buy US made military equipment. I call that welfare.

[Doug Miller]

[e-mail] wrote in news:5630687.187.1334690449443.JavaMail.geo- discussion-forums@ynee23:

money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime in taxes.

Which brings us around to the other big advantage of a sales tax: It's the only way there is of taxing illegally earned income.

Sure, there might be one or two drug dealers somewhere in the U.S. who actually declare their income on Form 1040 and pay taxes on it -- but common sense tells you that most of them don't. As is the case, I'm sure, with a great many people who are paid in cash.

[Doug Miller]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:8d5efa5c-a202-4e1e-bfa2- [e-mail]:

paying more taxes.

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than wage or salary income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the current system than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary? Congress has been using the tax code as an instrument of social and economic policy for several generations. Without addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of doing so, I wish to point out that a sales tax can be *much* more finely tuned, in that respect, than an income tax, for example:

-- no sales tax whatever on staple foods such as flour, sugar, eggs, milk, etc. but substantial sales tax on soda, potato chips, Twinkies, etc

-- sales tax *rate* on meat tied to the per-pound price, e.g. 1% on hamburger and 10% on filet mignon

-- no sales tax whatever on any used goods

-- first $50K of the price of a home exempted and so on. We can argue about the specifics all day long, but there are many, many ways that a sales tax can be structured to minimize or eliminate its impact on the very poor.

[Doug Miller]

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sIGdneX4oeaiRhDSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

The only reasonable definition of "fair share" IMHO is that above a certain threshold level designed to protect the working poor from having to pay *any* tax, everyone pays the same rate.

[krw]

hide their

way there is of

Not just illegally earned but the entire "underground economy" gets taxed.

The bigwigs do, that's what the term "laundering money" is all about.

[krw]

Start by eliminating the EITC. It's awfully hard to convince anyone that money doesn't grow on trees when Uncle Sugar hands it out free every April.

[HeyBub]

Why is that a "problem?"

The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't send their kids to government schools, use the county hospital, collect rent suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay SOMETHING. After all, they are driven on public roads and use federal airspace. But the poor use far more tax-supported services, both absolutely and per capita, so fairness dictates they pay more.