Our Wacky President!

EITC?

Diogenes,

I'm not overtly interested in hijacking this thread, but your statement really bemused me.....

You don't like Earned Income Tax Credits?

I thought that it was one program where most people from all politcal spectrums liked.
 
I bet the tax refunds come with a "Bush in 2004" sticker.

If you wanna give money back, give it to the working poor. You know theyll go spend it on all sorts of cool stuff!



as for a Missle defense system??? Hello, anyone ever place Atari "Missle Command".. that proved that a missle sheild just wont work.
 
Mercutio said:
A refund for not having kids? Why? W borrowed the money from them in the first place.

I gotta look for it, but there was a great editorial that argued that childless people should sign off on their social security, since they don't have kids that will be paying for it when the time comes.
I will gladly sign off on SS if I don't have to pay taxes to support all those kids that middle class parents refuse to support and educate on their own. I'll have much more money that way to put away for retirement. Great plan!
 
Re: EITC?

specious_reasons said:
Diogenes,

I'm not overtly interested in hijacking this thread, but your statement really bemused me.....

You don't like Earned Income Tax Credits?

I thought that it was one program where most people from all politcal spectrums liked.

I'm sure I would like it if I qualified for it... Turbo Tax always skips over it, so I must admit I don't understand exactly how it works.

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts..
 
Re: Re: EITC?

Diogenes

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts.
EIC is a form of Negative Income Tax -- the only model of tax/transfer that the libertarian economist Milton Friedman endorsed (he in fact endorsed it quite stridently).

NIT is based on recognition that tax/transfer is unavoidable and in fact desirable for the well-being of society; and on the beliefs that the government shouldn't provide the services itself due to inefficiency, and that the extant welfare systema are extravagantly wasteful, unwieldy, and don't do what they are supposed to do anyway.

if you want to know more, look up "negative income tax" on the web.
 
Why is there a group of politicians that seem to follow this logic:

Budget Surplus -> "We need to lower taxes"
Budget Deficit -> "We need to cut taxes"

When are we obligated to raise taxes? According to some politicians, it seems never.

Interesting data I found showed that the optimal tax rate for the country to maximize revenues was above what we currently pay. I will have to dig that study up again.

Lurker
 
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159apa.html

“For specific taxes, governments collect the highest amount of revenue when tax rates equal 22.5 percent for the income tax, 12.5 percent for the sales tax and 13.2 percent for taxes on international trade.”

Currently, the US average income tax is 18%, far below the 22.5% which would maximize revenue. So, when Bush's tax cuts go into effect, we should expect less revenue from that.

Lurker
 
Diogenes said:


You got to be kidding?

It happens almost daily.. ( taxes being raised )

I'm waiting to start paying taxes on my taxes....

No, my point was that there are certain politicians who feel that no matter what the question is, the answer is to lower taxes. Don't you find that strange that lowering taxes is a panacea for two diametrically opposed situations? If someone said they were selling snake oil that could make you lose or gain weight depending on your condition I bet your skepticism meter would be hitting overload. Yet you happily accept it from politicians.

Lurker
 
I think that if we had a flat tax then 5% would be enough, those great machines of capitalism (ie corporations) frequently do not pay taxes.
FLAT TAX, NO EXCEPTIONS.

A friend and I agreed that the only fair way to do it would be to tax all income, so no more 501-c exemption, no more church exemption, no more deductions and loop holes.

I am all for it.
 
Diogenes said:


What's the average for people who actually pay taxes?

I have a feeling that this 18% average includes some people who don't..

I understand a flat 10% (everybody pays ) would have Uncle Sam rolling in dough..

Maybe Victor could add an informed spin to this..

Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker
 
Lurker said:


Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker

I don't have one..

Dont' feel like looking for one.

As I said, I have heard that tossed about..



If you don't buy it, I'll defer to your informed opinion..

I'm not happy with the amount of taxes I pay, but I really don't have any reason to believe I will have reason to rejoice any time soon. I see the tax cut as a grudging return of a small part of what is rightfully mine.
 
Re: Re: EITC?

Diogenes said:

I'm sure I would like it if I qualified for it... Turbo Tax always skips over it, so I must admit I don't understand exactly how it works.

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts..

Victor wrote something much more informative than I would have, so I won't add much.

I view it as a social assistance to the working poor as a reward for actually working. Worlds better than just handing someone a check.
 
Diogenes said:

I'm waiting to start paying taxes on my taxes....

Here in Iowa, legislatures are voting tomorrow on whether or not to be able to deduct federal taxes off of state income tax. By requiring residents to pay state income tax on federal taxes they can increase the state income 15% to 20%. I am not sure if they plan on dropping Iowa's tax rate (about 8-9%) in addition or (more likely) they plan on doing this to make up the budget shortfalls.
 
Lurker said:


Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker

Jerry Brown ran on a 13% flat, no exceptions tax. His predictions, for what it's worth, was that the US Govt. would generate more revenue from this scheme.

The important thing, though, is what counts as income.... Dick Armey proposed a flat tax sometime in the 90s (maybe earlier). The important disctinction was that his flat tax was strictly on wages and compensation. The capital gains rate was 0%. That would have reduced revenue drastically. Of course, that's what he wanted.
 
Hey, if you can sell a tax plan that gives the biggest cuts to the wealthy and the least to the middle class, then you can sell anything.

The probelm that his people are either too stupid to realize, to just don't care about

Is that Keyansian economics solves many of the problems of capitalism while creating eventual stagflation.

Supply-Side resolves the problem of stagflation but is also causes the problems that Keyansian economics resolved. So, pulling the same trick that Reagan pulled again is not goign to work, it sjust digging a deeper hole. The solution in terms of capitalism is a return to the Keyansian era of the 1950s and 1960s until stagflation sets in again, and then to switch back to Supply-Side again, and then you back and fourth like that.

This isn't going to work though, and I'm willing to bet money on that. In 10 years weren't looing at major problems if this type of policy is followed out for that long.

They wil eventially have to return to high marginal rates or we will be turning into a 3rd world country soon.

Here is my tax plan:

My plan

$0-$30,000 - 10%
$30,000-$60,000 - 15%
$60,000-$100,000 - 20%
$100,000-$170,000 - 25%
$170,000-$300,000 - 30%
$300,000-$500,000 - 35%
$500,000-$1,000,000 - 40%
$1,000,000-$1,500,000 - 45%
$1,500,000-$2,000,000 - 46%
$2,000,000-$2,500,000 - 47%
$2,500,000-$3,000,000 - 48%
$3,000,000-$4,000,000 - 49%
$4,000,000 and over - 50%

Current Plan

$0-$27,050 - 15%
$27,050-$65,550 - 28%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750-$297,350 - 36%
$297,350 and over - 39%

Bush plan

$0-$6,000 - 10%
$6,000-$27,050 - 15%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750 and over - 33%

The way that capital gains would be taxed is that anyone who’s combined earned income and capital gains income is under $300,000 a year would have their capital gains taxed at the rate equal to their earned income and capital gains combined. Anyone who's combined capital gains and earned income is over $300,000 a year would simply have their capital gains taxed as 30%. The current capital gains tax is 28%.

By taxing dividends in the manner that I have proposed low income earners would not be penalized for capital gains income in the way that they are now, making capital investment more attractive to lower income individuals, as well as lower tax rates which would free up more capital for investing, purchasing, and saving.

This type of taxation would promote a healthier economy by placing a more fair tax burden on those receiving extremely high income, opposed to the current plan and Bush's plan that sets a low top margin which effectively create a flat tax for the wealthy. At the same time a plan like I proposed would create a tax cut for everyone making under $500,000 a year.
 
Malachi151says:
Hey, if you can sell a tax plan that gives the biggest cuts to the wealthy and the least to the middle class, then you can sell anything.

They get the biggest cuts because they make the most.. Why do you think they deserve to be punished more than the middle class?

So you believe letting people keep more of what they earn is giving them a break?

What office are you running for?

Where do you think the money that working people earn, comes from?
 
Diogenes said:
Malachi151says:


They get the biggest cuts because they make the most.. Why do you think they deserve to be punished more than the middle class?

So you believe letting people keep more of what they earn is giving them a break?

What office are you running for?

Where do you think the money that working people earn, comes from?

Okay, I'll rephrase that, the biggest TAX RATE cuts.

And my ideas on economics are too much to get into in this thread, if you want to read them, they are in the link in my sig mixed throught the paper.

Here is some data:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/bushplan.html

A large percentage cut is given at the super low end, under $6,000 a year, but we all know thats well below poverty and really doesn't not represent poor people it represents part time workers and students. Anyone living on under $6,000 a year would be on assistance anyway. At any rate, the relatively large cut for that group $0- $6,000 only saves those pople at most $300, and as I said, that was done basically just as show so that Bush could claim to be giving abig tax break to the poor.

Anyway, you can see the numbers for yourself, and here is a graph going through $1,000,000.

this_w10.jpg


Keep in mind that is a graph of percent of the reduction. Its not that the wealthy get more money back, its that they get a larger reduction in taxes.

Here is Bush's deceptive graph from his webwite:

this_w9.gif


This is actual dollars saved through 2 million a year salary. Keep in mind for all of this that we have people making over $30 million a year in this country, thouhg I don't know if that is classified as earned income though.

this_w11.gif
 

Back
Top Bottom