Tax breaks for the rich:

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4440125.stm

It's tax time here in the USA. Just thought I'd throw this article in here & watch all the Speaker's Corner dogs fight over it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[TheAnvil 0]

Yeah, it's tax time again. May the Fair Tax be adopted and the evil IRS abolished.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yeah, it's tax time again. May the Fair Tax be adopted and the evil IRS abolished.

Yeah. People wonder how there could be all of these tax havens. When you have the Internal Revenue Code as thick as it is, the more specific the regulations, the more loopholes there are.

Does it make sense to spend $10,000 to set up tax breaks for a $7,000 tax bill? Nope. So lower and middle class don't do it. But it's worth while to spend $7k to avoid a $50k tax bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Can we abolish Schnauzers or Old English Sheepdogs? I don't trust an animal I cannot look in the eye.

[goalie35 0]

Good on anyone that can protect some of what they have from the fedgoons. May I grow up to be one of them!

Better yet, may we all grow up one day and starve the bloated government at all levels of its lifeblood and only power: our money.

[nanook 1]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. They get a lot of tax breaks. . .so do we. But they create a hell of a lot of revenue for the govt. They may get taxed less than us percentage wise, but they employ most of america. It's rare that an employer makes minimum wage. What happens if Delta or Coca Cola dissapears all of a sudden? That's a shit load of people not working. a lot of people not buying and paying sales tax. How much does a single family that makes 80,000 pay in taxes? Probably 13800 before thier non-refundable breaks and other credits. Barely paying for your own piece of America. The rich pay most of the taxes

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. They get a lot of tax breaks. . .so do we. But they create a hell of a lot of revenue for the govt. They may get taxed less than us percentage wise, but they employ most of america. It's rare that an employer makes minimum wage. What happens if Delta or Coca Cola dissapears all of a sudden? That's a shit load of people not working. a lot of people not buying and paying sales tax. How much does a single family that makes 80,000 pay in taxes? Probably 13800 before thier non-refundable breaks and other credits. Barely paying for your own piece of America. The rich pay most of the taxes

So you think "Only the little people pay taxes" is perfectly acceptable public policy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

Since us "little folk" are already use to living hand to mouth, and we raise such little stink after all, it MUST be acceptable. We pay as we are told, as is dictated by the tax table, and we accept it. No questions asked. Get with the program, John. You must come to know your place in the scheme. Be happy with your lot. After all, you are a scientist.

Baaaaaa
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[nanook 1]

Quote

So you think "Only the little people pay taxes" is perfectly acceptable public policy.

Nope. Definately not. But tax breaks for those who create employment and products therefore more taxable sources doesn't bother me much.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Be happy with your lot. After all, you are a scientist.

I think you're confusing John with one of the 'little people'. He's a rich guy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So you think "Only the little people pay taxes" is perfectly acceptable public policy.

Gouging "the wealthy" less isn't going to mean "only the little people" are carrying the tax burden.

In 2001 50% of taxes collected came from the top 10%, 65.3% from the top 20%, and 1.1 percent from the bottom 20%.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

So you think "Only the little people pay taxes" is perfectly acceptable public policy.

that's absolute hogwash kallend. the rich in this country have and will continue to pay the vast majority of the taxes. corporations and such get big tax breaks so, i guess you could complain about that. the personnal income tax is a whole different story and the statement that "tax cuts are for the rich" is pure, left-wing crap.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 2,426]

>the statement that "tax cuts are for the rich" is pure, left-wing crap.

The most recent tax cuts were for the rich. Now, you can argue that the poor got too many tax breaks previously, and this was just a 'correction' or something. But unless you redefine math, or the term 'rich', the last round of tax cuts benefited the rich.

From Warren Buffet, who I imagine you would consider an expert on money:

------------------------------------------
Buffett slams dividend tax cut
One of world's richest calls plan 'voodoo economics,' says it puts burden on low-income families.
May 20, 2003: 10:41 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Renewing his criticism of the dividend tax cut laid out by the Senate last week, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett called the proposal "voodoo economics" that uses "Enron-style accounting."

The Senate's plan for dividends to be 50 percent tax free in 2003, 100 percent tax free in 2004 through 2006 and then face the full tax in 2007 would "further tilt the tax scales toward the rich," Buffett wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Buffett posed a hypothetical situation in which Berkshire Hathaway, which does not currently pay a dividend, paid $1 billion in dividends next year.

Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent.

[tcnelson 1]

the phrase that i think sums up what happened last year is: tax cuts for people who paid taxes. the people who benefited the most paid the most in income tax. that seems fair to me.

what i thought was crazy was that people who already pay little to no income tax were bitching about the fact that they weren't going to receive a tax cut. it's the me, me, me, where's my free money attitude that pisses me off.

i'm for an alternate income tax anyway. the national sales tax or a flat tax rate or whatever. the IRS is totally unnecessary in its current form. changing the system to something more simple would put a whole bunch of accountants and lawyers out of business though.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 2,426]

> the phrase that i think sums up what happened last year is: tax cuts for
>people who paid taxes.

Well, tax cuts for people paying a lot of taxes.

>what i thought was crazy was that people who already pay little to no
> income tax were bitching about the fact that they weren't going to receive
> a tax cut. it's the me, me, me, where's my free money attitude that
> pisses me off.

Hmm. A family of four, who makes $30,000 (taxable income) a year and pays $3000 in taxes, might well claim they need that $3000 to, say, send their kids to school. A family of four that makes $320,000 a year, and who pays $86,000 in taxes a year, may make the same claim - but I will pay a lot less attention to their bitches. It's basic math. You can do more with $234,000 than you can with $27,000.

A fair system is one that penalizes the people really struggling the least, and penalizes those most able to pay the most. We have that now, which makes it (in my mind) a relatively fair system.

>i'm for an alternate income tax anyway. the national sales tax or a flat
>tax rate or whatever. the IRS is totally unnecessary in its current form.
> changing the system to something more simple would put a whole
>bunch of accountants and lawyers out of business though.

I agree there.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>A fair system is one that penalizes the people really struggling the least, and penalizes those most able to pay the most.

As always, the definition of "fair" is the arguing point - here one family pays 10% and another pays 26% and some think that's fair. The only common note here is that everyone seems to consider taxing to be "penalizing". That says it right there.

A flat tax or sales tax would be much better and easier to administrate and be easier for people to understand so that when they say it's fair or not, they aren't speaking from ignorance.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

A flat tax or sales tax would be much better and easier to administrate and be easier for people to understand so that when they say it's fair or not, they aren't speaking from ignorance.

A flat tax, or a flat rate? Either way I can see people bitching about either.

Same with a National Sales Tax.

I am in favor of a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same rate, no deductions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

In 2001 50% of taxes collected came from the top 10%, 65.3% from the top 20%, and 1.1 percent from the bottom 20%.

Look at it this way: You make 20 million, paying 5million is not going to break you. You make $20,000- taking $5,000 will break you.

[billvon 2,426]

>here one family pays 10% and another pays 26% and some think that's
> fair.

Absolutely. It's all in the context of ability to pay. Most people agree that it is unfair to place a burden on someone they cannot support.

>A flat tax or sales tax would be much better and easier to administrate
> and be easier for people to understand so that when they say it's fair or
> not, they aren't speaking from ignorance.

Agreed on the sales tax. Make a flat sales tax, add exemptions on necessities for poverty, and you could eliminate the IRS.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Agreed on the sales tax. Make a flat sales tax, add exemptions on necessities for poverty, and you could eliminate the IRS.

How about this? Pass a law that allows anyone making less than x $/year is allowed to club anyone making over z $/year and take their cars - but only non-hybrids of course - we want to encourage the rich to buy hybrids. People who make x or y or z are tattooed on their foreheads so they can tell which group they are in. The rich driving hybrids will be issued a halo to wear to ward off attackers.

For your above Nat sales tax - just add exemptions on necessities. period. Why differentiate by income and make it more complex? Rich or poor, you can only wear so many clothes and eat so much food.

Or, for a flat tax rate (I like this one). Exempt x dollars for each person. Then it proportionally helps the poor more than the rich. Simpler way to make a progressive tax rate scheme. example - tax 33% and exempt $10K per dependent (if you make 60K and have a kid and spouse, you only pay $10k (true 16.7% rate), if you make 600K and have a kid and a spounse, you pay $190K (true 31.7% rate). It would of course encourage having more kids which is likely good in the long run. The couple who only make $40K will have 2 kids and get a free ride. The rich couple at half a mil would have to have 48 kids to avoid paying taxes - that should punish them enough for any guilty liberal.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Absolutely. It's all in the context of ability to pay. Most people agree that it is unfair to place a burden on someone they cannot support.

Disagree with both assumptions, comrade. I'd say that whether it's unfair to place a burden - the world is split and "most people" don't agree on equal burden vs 'ability to pay'. A flat tax would be progressive in amount paid, not rate, so that meets the 'ability to pay' criteria anyway.

Is it unfair to bill someone for the electricity they use in their home if they can't pay? You have the ability to pay more for your electric bills - then shouldn't you pay more even though you don't use the city supply as much?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,426]

>How about this?

A most excellent straw man! I'll give you one - how about we go to the ultimate fair tax? Take the budget, divide by the number of people in the US, and charge everyone that amount. It comes to about $24,000 a person. If someone makes $10,000 a year, he has a choice - get a job making $25,000 a year, or go to prison. Children would be exempt until age 13, where they can again choose to get a high paying job or go to prison. Everyone can choose the option best for them.

The ultimate, 100% fair tax! Everyone pays the same.

In the real world, most people understand that not everyone can afford the same chunk of the debt. So we have a progressive system that penalizes the people who can't pay the least. Which in my book is fair.

>For your above Nat sales tax - just add exemptions on necessities. period.
> Why differentiate by income and make it more complex? Rich or poor,
>you can only wear so many clothes and eat so much food.

Surely you have looked in women's closets, and have noted the number of morbidly obese people out there? It would be a mistake to give them additional incentives to do that sort of thing. Give people who can prove poverty a coupon book (or choose your own method) that gives them the ability to buy X food, pay Y rent and buy Z clothes over the course of a year. That way, taxes overall are held at a minimum level. (Fewer exemptions, lower taxes overall.)

[billvon 2,426]

>You have the ability to pay more for your electric bills - then shouldn't
>you pay more even though you don't use the city supply as much?

I do, voluntarily. Bad example.

[rehmwa 2]

Yeah - those are 2 great strawmen . Both points made (again)

I don't believe in penalizing fat people for the sake of their cosmetic appearance (halo icon here). that's mean. Why are you being insensitive to the body-mass challenged? They can't help it.

{{I don't look in women's closets - it makes me confused and a little anxious }}

Seriously, I like your idea except for the prejudice by income level - particularly when left alone it already meets that purpose. Let's not waste more tax money on coupon books. Rich or poor, necessities are necessities - luxuries are luxuries. It works well in our state MN - food and clothes are not taxed.

In mean, really, what about the people's right to privacy? You can't expect people to just flash their coupon books and have everyone realize their income level? I mean, if I don't have a coupon book, I'll be 'uncomfortable' in the store and everybody will stare. They must be something in the constitution to protect my feelings.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>You have the ability to pay more for your electric bills - then shouldn't
>you pay more even though you don't use the city supply as much?

I do, voluntarily. Bad example.

No deal, you should do it even involuntarily by your original example. Bad example on your part. But good for you, see? It doesn't need to be legislated.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants