You can't rhyme "be" with "B", Clak.

Originally Posted by Javery I'm not going to argue with that - if we are being honest though can't you see why someone in my position (doing just fine although it could all come crashing down at any time) would reasonably be opposed to higher taxes?

Your 'reason' makes about as much sense as Gordon Gekko's 'greed is good' speech.

edit: Javery, fyi Gekko was the villian of that movie. I didn't want you to be confused.

Originally Posted by The Crotch You can't rhyme "be" with "B", Clak.

Hey, I don't give you shit about your yearly "tree planting" excursions, let me have my moment.

So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.

Let's say we let all "Bush Tax Cuts" expire and maintain the estate tax. How much more money is that projected to bring into the Federal Government?

Originally Posted by egofed So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.

You don't grasp the percentages of a progressive tax system. Everything else you say is moot.

Originally Posted by egofed So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.

How much (as a percentage of the budget) do you think non military foreign aid is?

I really wish that the anti government, America yeah types could have their own little chunk of land to run, just to leave the rest of us alone. They gripe about taxes and refuse to look to other countries which do pay higher taxes, and tend to get more for it. Hell, look at your local infrastructure, I bet your roads are no better than mine here, full of pot holes, crap patch jobs etc. You know that in many other industrialized countries they take care of their roads much better than we do, but that takes money, and where does that money come from? Yep, the thing you hate. Look at the state of some of the bridges in this country, they stay up much longer than they're supposed to, they get scheduled for replacement and it never happens. Why? Because bridges aren't cheap, that's why. People don't want to pay taxes to build new ones or properly maintain old ones, so they deteriorate.

Reagen derailed this country from the ideas of the new deal, and we haven't been the same since.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Let's say we let all "Bush Tax Cuts" expire and maintain the estate tax. How much more money is that projected to bring into the Federal Government?

A non trivial number?

You know I was listening to NPR a while back and they were asking economists what, in their opinion, we really need to do fiscally/tax wise. One suggestion that was made, though sure to be unpopular, was removing the mortgage interest deduction. They're reasoning was that i doesn't really benefit most people all that much, but helps those buying large expensive houses much more.

Originally Posted by speedracer A non trivial number?

That's very non-specific.

Originally Posted by Clak You know I was listening to NPR a while back and they were asking economists what, in their opinion, we really need to do fiscally/tax wise. One suggestion that was made, though sure to be unpopular, was removing the mortgage interest deduction. They're reasoning was that i doesn't really benefit most people all that much, but helps those buying large expensive houses much more.

I've heard a variant of that, which is to "flatten" it or cap it. The rationale being that a person who buys a $500K house shouldn't benefit more than someone who buys a $120K house.

I live in a very strange parcel of land where new construction is so omnipresent as to be aggravating and home prices have risen ing absurdly in the past 5 years. I'm confident I could easily sell my home for 25% over what I paid for it under 2 years ago today. That shouldn't really influence the size of a tax deduction.

The mortgage interest deduction is a contentious thing to remove, as some economists argue it'll pop a small bubble in home prices (they'd deflate somewhat). I benefit from it, as do all homeowners. But I'd give it up - *only* if marginal tax rates on the $250K+ earners exceeded 45%, and capital gains taxes matches income tax rates.

You want to take from the middle class, you better give the middle class a good deal more than "Clinton-era tax rates."

I grasp the percentages just fine. Taking 39%, yet alone whatever crazy number it works out to with other state and local taxes, is crazy. Just because someone is successful doesn't give us the right to more of their money. I know you guys hate "principles", but my stance is that taking by force and threat of imprisonment is wrong. If you guys really think that rich people are using that much more in government services, ie their "fair share", then institute the fair tax. Tolls on roads, higher taxes on luxury goods, collection of taxes based on what you truly use and buy. (Not to mention it captures taxes on all the drug and under the table income). It also simplifies the tax code and eliminates all loop holes. The "black market" is the only real difficulty I see in containing. "Fair share" is a broad and general term that is effective in whipping the uninformed members of the Democratic party into a frenzy. I'm not against taxes, just insane and tyrannical rates that are only "necessary" because of the waste and inefficiencies of our government.

Do away with the interest, earned income, and any child deductions. I'd for go any deductions for a fair and simple system.

"The 2010 United States federal budget spent $52.7 billion out of $3.55 trillion (1.5%) on foreign aid. $15.0 billion was military; $37.7 billion was economic aid (of which USAID received $14.1 billion).[1]" Are you saying that it is too small of a percentage to make a difference? I disagree. Every .42 cent of a dollar that we are spending is "borrowed" right now. Take that 37.7 billion and use it here, where the citizens who "donated" it live and will gain benefit. Many cuts in unnecessary and bloated programs will add up. I also think anyone that doesn't see our debt as a crisis is deluding themselves. "The top reserve currency is generally selected by the banking community for the strength and stability of the economy in which it is used. Thus, as a currency becomes less stable, or its economy becomes less dominant, bankers may over time abandon it for a currency issued by a larger or more stable economy. This can take a relatively long time, as recognition is important in determining a reserve currency. For example, it took many years after the United States overtook the United Kingdom as the world's largest economy before the dollar overtook Sterling as the dominant global reserve currency.[8] Schenk has shown in her 2009 study that in 1944 (Bretton Woods) the US dollar was chosen as the world reference currency whereas it was only the second currency in global reserves.[8]" See how well "just printing more money" works if we lose this status. Two downgrades done, what's next? We need to make our financial solvency a major issue.

We'll never have nice things in this country as people are greedy selfish s and not willing to pay for it.

So we have shitty roads, god awful often not worth bothering with public transit (I'd killl for a high speed rail system), pathetic internet speeds that way pay more for vs. other countries, a terrible health care/health insurance system and on down the line. Along with all the shitty elements of our culture--terrible food, obesity, anti-intellectualism, raging consumerism, idolization of celebrities and athletes etc.

I'm not so sure why people are so pro-USA. Lot's of other countries that do a lot of things better and I'd be gone in a second if/when I can work out career and language barrier issues.

Originally Posted by egofed I grasp the percentages just fine.

Good to know. I look forward to a sensible, intellectual, precise discussion of tax policy from you, then.

Taking 39%, yet alone whatever crazy number it works out to with other state and local taxes, is crazy.

Here, I'll even explain the system to end this idiocy.

With the current tax brackets your income gets taxed as follows:

First $8,700 gets taxed at 10%
$8,701 to $35,350 gets taxed at 15%
$35,351 to $85,650 gets taxed at 25%
$86,651 to $178,650 gets taxed at 28%
$178,651 to $388,350 gets taxed at 30%
$388,351 gets taxed at 35%

No one gets all their income taxed at one rate unless they make under $8,701 and only pay 10%. You don't just pay taxes on ALL your income at your top rate. A rich person only pays the 35% on each dollar they make over $388,350 currently, not on dollars they made before hitting that amount.


As for how much revenue letting the tax cuts expire would bring in, I don't see an official estimate on how much it would be to them expire for everyone, but the CBO estimates that letting them expire for those making over $250k would bring in around $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-...st-1-trillion/

Edit, looks like letting them all expire would bring in $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...out-taxes.html

You know that in America, you aren't required to get a license or permit to move, right? That each locality, county, and state can set their own laws and that you can choose whichever you like best? I just want to make sure you're not being held at gunpoint somewhere.

Originally Posted by egofed I grasp the percentages just fine. Taking 39%, yet alone whatever crazy number it works out to with other state and local taxes, is crazy.

You *do* realize that your community chooses its own taxation level via representation and bond votes, correct?

Also, what's a state income tax? Never hurd of it. Must be some liberal pansy thing. *spits*

/Texan

Just because someone is successful doesn't give us the right to more of their money. I know you guys hate "principles", but my stance is that taking by force and threat of imprisonment is wrong.

Help! I'm being oppressed by choosing to live where I do!

If you guys really think that rich people are using that much more in government services, ie their "fair share", then institute the fair tax. Tolls on roads, higher taxes on luxury goods, collection of taxes based on what you truly use and buy.

We do have toll roads. We do have higher taxes on luxury goods. We do have a collection of taxes based on what you truly use and buy. Are you choosing to live somewhere where they don't do that?

As my grandfather would say, you know what you call that? Dumb.

/Texan

It also simplifies the tax code and eliminates all loop holes. The "black market" is the only real difficulty I see in containing. "Fair share" is a broad and general term that is effective in whipping the uninformed members of the Democratic party into a frenzy. I'm not against taxes, just insane and tyrannical rates that are only "necessary" because of the waste and inefficiencies of our government.

I would be swayed by your argument if you were to give it some historical context. Are our taxes at an insane level relative to our, I dunno, say, last century of taxation levels? I'm ready to be convinced. Convince me.

Do away with the interest, earned income, and any child deductions. I'd for go any deductions for a fair and simple system.

Huh. Is it weird that you only listed deductions that predominantly benefit the middle class? That seems weird to me. What should I infer from that?

What American doesn't love money, and now the rich are going to have to pony up more to the govt. Of course Javery and his friends don't like it. To answer his question, yeah it makes sense, just like I don't like paying taxes on internet sales. Difference being I know it's the right thing to do so I don't really blame the govt for taking their fair cut of the transaction.

What I'll never get is why a fireman and a wally world assistant manager care so much. You guys will always be poor, guys like Javery will never, ever, ever, ever care about your situation, he just wants the money. Javery himself posted some dumb video where a redneck was throwing around hundreds as his reason for opposing the expiration of Dubya tax cuts.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I care because right is right and wrong is wrong. Just because something makes sense to you, does not make it morally just. Javery shouldn't have to care about my situation. True freedom allows you to be a major dick if you want to be.;-) I do understand the progressive tax system, thank you very much. Taking 35% or 39% of any income should be criminal. We do have usury laws, too bad they do not apply to the government. The fair tax that I support does away with all income tax, speedracer. You get all of your income, and pay a higher tax on what you choose to purchase. As far as past taxation rates, old wrongs should be used as examples for the future? We do have a spending problem and a revenue problem. Too many people pay no income tax in our current system but still get to vote.

Originally Posted by mykevermin I've heard a variant of that, which is to "flatten" it or cap it. The rationale being that a person who buys a $500K house shouldn't benefit more than someone who buys a $120K house. I live in a very strange parcel of land where new construction is so omnipresent as to be aggravating and home prices have risen ing absurdly in the past 5 years. I'm confident I could easily sell my home for 25% over what I paid for it under 2 years ago today. That shouldn't really influence the size of a tax deduction. The mortgage interest deduction is a contentious thing to remove, as some economists argue it'll pop a small bubble in home prices (they'd deflate somewhat). I benefit from it, as do all homeowners. But I'd give it up - *only* if marginal tax rates on the $250K+ earners exceeded 45%, and capital gains taxes matches income tax rates. You want to take from the middle class, you better give the middle class a good deal more than "Clinton-era tax rates."

That was basically their rationale, that the the biggest benefit is garnered by those buying the McMansions rather than what you or I could afford.I'd say cap it personally, it is of some benefit to the middle class, but it's nauseating to think how much some people get to deduct. If nothing else it might make buying those huge homes a little less attractive.