OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

We could have civil discussion if we left politics out of it.

Obama just tried to close those loop holes you mention, but it got filibustered in the Senate.

I didn't miss any part. And until you specify the offsets a flat tax just gives a huge tax break to the rich. Especially the ones that get their millions in their pay check.

Reply to
Dan Espen
Loading thread data ...

Unfortunately politics is and always has been at the very center of tax policy.

As it should because he wants to do it while maintaining the existing tax code rates, pushing people into ridiculous tax rates.

If we had a flat tax rate of say 20%, Warren Buffet would pay more tax. So would Romney. Obama would pay the same amount he just did on his $800,000 income.

Pretty much ONLY the ones that get their millions in their pay checks and who aren't also using other loopholes to reduce that amount. Loopholes that lead to all kinds of misallocation in capital because people are forced into strategies to avoid taxes, rather than putting their money where it makes the most sense.

Reply to
trader4

I suppose that makes sense... To you.

Reply to
Dan Espen

That's sorta like suggesting you could have an open marriage except your wife won't agree. Taxes, along with war, are the two most unequivocably political things a Congress can do.

He wasn't doing anything of the sort. He was busy trying to get points with his own wingnuts by doing something that would have an effect on maybe 1% of the 1%. The %age of AGI paid on average by the top

1% is 24%, the average tax rate by the bottom 50% is 1.85% (%age of AGI paid in income taxes.. a fact that both sides conveniently ignore for reasons (at least on the GOP side) I have never really understood. The bottom 50% is thrown off to a certain extent since the bottom 2 quintiles actually have negative rates related to credits they get.

There are flat taxes and then their are Flat Taxes. I have never had problems with having 3-4 rates for differing brackets. The flat part would be to flatten out all the extraneous BS. This is your income, this is your tax rate. Send it.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

And when those loopholes were created, they did encourage the desired behavior. All perfectly legitimate under "encouraging the common welfare".

This "constitutional issue" is a figment of your imagination.

But when it comes to repealing one of these loop holes when it's no longer needed we run up against ideologues that have signed the Grover Norquist pledge. So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies and banks.

Reply to
Dan Espen

Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries. If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them out like zits

Reply to
Attila.Iskander

Reading your last several posts, you appear to be a dyed in the wool liberal socialist.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies and banks.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Yes and no. They encouraged the desired behavior (sometimes, I have all sorts of instances where changes in the tax code resulted in really bad behaviors and others where the outcomes were pretty much the exact opposite of what they were touted to do), but only for a certain period of time. Then the system regained equilibrium under the new order and carried on w/ relatively little impact.

If you look at the top tax expenditures (that is Washington for loopholes) you have to get to number 7 before you get to one that might be beneficial to only people in the top brackets and it is out of the top 10 before you get one that is exclusively for business. We spend a lot more on loopholes for everyone (like IRAs, healthcare-- the single biggest--, and mortgage deductions-- the second biggest).

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

"common welfare" individual welfare

Nonsense.

Reply to
krw

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

Reply to
Dan Espen

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

Reply to
Dan Espen

It makes sense to a lot of us.

Reply to
Gordon Shumway

You gotta explain that one to me. How does a deduction I get for taking out a mortgage work as welfare to the banks?

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

and institute a

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed.

It would encourage saving.

It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

Reply to
dennisgauge

Makes the mortgage more affordable. In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Reply to
Dan Espen

ndment, and institute a

That's true. One benefit of a national sales tax or a VAT tax is that it's harder to avoid.

yone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would e= nd up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than they do under the current system or with a flat income tax. The rich do spend more, but I think very few are spending enough to come anywhere close to making up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around

18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5% of what he earns.

And the tax would hit the poor, who pay no tax at all the hardest. You could partly offset that by making food, housing up to a certain point, etc exempt.

It's interesting, but I believe it would shift a lot more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.

Yes, but with an economy just barely moving, it could also put us in a depression when people reduce buying.

Reply to
trader4

to hide their money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime i= n taxes.

There is no guarantee that a national sales tax would not have similar loopholes. I highly doubt you'd get one passed without the usual special interests getting their particular segment exempt. Housing would be one good example and with good argument. If you buy a house and decide to move in 3 years, take a new job, do you keep paying sales tax? Does it apply to used goods or just new?

And while I agree a national sales tax would be harder to avoid, it can still be done. The very rich can buy stuff overseas, for example. But that new Gulfstream in the Bahamas and base it there.

l spend MORE DOLLARS, period.

Yes, but most aren't going to spend anywhere near enough to make up for the lost income tax revenue. Hence more of the tax burder will fall on the middle class and a lot of it will fall on those that pay no taxes at all right now.

Reply to
trader4

I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of those unemployed accountants ;)

Reply to
Frank

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire to avoid paying taxes.

The nature of taxes is such that no matter what the system is, everyone will complain about it.

Why do we get deductions for dependents? Each dependent costs the government more to educate. Especially true for my property taxes. The bulk goes to schools but I haven't had a child in our local schools for 30 years.

Reply to
Dan Espen

I'd be a little more supportive if someone could give me a definition of "fair share" that did not, in essence, boil down to "what offends me personally".

>
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.