Unless you personally use a ‘loophole’ you’ll never see the results of its being closed. Also, if it’s reinstated, it is very unlikely to be visible. -That’s one reason Republicans want modification of ‘loopholes’ rather than tax rates. Tax rates are automatic to enforce and are visible, when they’re increased or reduced. -And, of course, Republicans never specify which loopholes to close and never provide what effect it will have on revenue.-Some time early next week, Boehner will claim that Rebublicans are protecting ‘small’ business. Remember when he says that, he’s talking about Bain Capital and Koch Industries, not about your local dry cleaners or car wash. Small as defined only in the tax code.
So, the negotiations to date are-Round 1Obama- I want it all.Boehnor- I want it all.Round 2Obama- I’ll settle for mostBoehnor- You settle for some, I’ll settle for most.Round 3Obama- I have to have THIS.Boehnor- You settle for a lot, but you can’t have THAT.Round 4Obama- I’ll settle for this, I have to have THAT, but you have to anger voters by telling me what cuts you want to make to entitlements.Boehnor- I’ll settle for a little of this, but you can’t have THAT, and YOU have to anger voters by telling me what cuts you are willing to accept to entitlements.And as the fight goes on-In Obama’s corner we hear Reid and Pelosi-You have him on the ropes, don’t give him anything. You’re ahead on points. And in Boehnor’s corner, we hear McConnell and Norquist-No surrender, don’t back down. The judges are reviewing the fight, we can get the results overturned in 2014 if you just don’t surrender.In the meantime-The American people sit in the auditorium watching. The snack bar closed hours ago, the water fountains are broken and the restrooms are backing up as the house falls apart around the combatants.Aren’t negotiations a beautiful thing?From the movie Wargames- “Strange game. The only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game of chess.”Respectfully,& Hopefully,C.
The GOP knows that the loopholes and deductions will never be closed, but as long as they refuse to propose anything definite, no one will fight against them. As soon as someone brings up a loophole closing (and they want the Democrats to do it), it’ll be shot down. Look how the GOP blocked every attempt to make hedge fund managers pay income taxes instead of using the carried interest loophole. Sorry, the rates on income (especially on interest, dividends, and capital gains) need to go up or the rich will never pay their fair share. Sheldon Adelson DID get something for his $150 million — the GOP are happy to let the Obama tax cuts expire for working people, but will never raise Adelson’s rates.
Obama’s revenue proposals are good for starters but not enough in the long run. Mandated spending, structural deficit, and national debt including unfunded liabilities will dictate the need for much higher revenue. Just think what happens to the budget if interest rates go up even a couple percentage points, never mind return to traditional levels. 39.6% on the rich over $250,000 is a start. Once it is seen that is not enough, the super rich, say over $1 million, will need to dig deeper.
The question of the definition of “fair” has come up several times in the last few days. I don’t know that I have the perfect answer (nor, I suspect, do those who pose the question), but here’s an initial thought. No system of tax rates should leave anyone in a position where they can’t lead a reasonable life (given the standard of living where they live). If a reasonable standard of living costs, say, $30,000 a year, then a person making $30,000 a year has to struggle to pay for rent and food and clothing and such, then that person should pay little or no tax. A person making $100,000 a year could easily be expected to pay $10,000 (that’s 10%), leaving $90,000, or $60,000 above the reasonable standard, for extras (such as a nicer house or a fancier car). A person making $200,000 is still going to do okay paying $50,000 (that’s 25%), leaving $150,000, or $120,000 over the standard, which is not too shabby. He’s still much more able to spend on non-essentials than either the guy making $30,000 (who has nothing extra) or the guy making $100,000 (who has $60,000 extra). A person making $500,000 a year could pay $250,000 (that’s 50%) and still have $250,000, which is $220,000 above the standard.
$30,000 , 0%, pays $0, $0 extra$100,000, 10%, pays $10,000, $60,000 extra$200,000, 25%, pays $50,000, $120,000 $500,000, 50%, pays $250,000, $220,000
And so on. There is some “redistribution of wealth” going on in such a system, but notice that it does not attempt to bring everyone to the same level, and rich people are still rich, and richer people stay richer. (I hope someone checks my arithmetic.)
Are you insane? Do you actually believe that those are real statistics and not weasel words designed to make the numbers sound different than the facts state?
‘86% of income taxes’ probably refers to the total in money, not percentage of individual income paid, they have more money, so their taxes are the biggest chunk of revenue, even though they’re not paying as much as they should.
the Bottom 50% of wage earners includes people who have lost their jobs, or who come in below the poverty line. Of course they pay no taxes.
Either you are completely stupid to have bought into that weaselly propaganda, or you think everyone else who will read that is stupid.
Never said that, I just stopped with half a million. Notice I said “and so on”. Anyway, I’m talking principles rather than specific figures, but I’d go for 50% rather than — what is it now? — 32% or so?
Yes, there would be a limit. Never more than 100%. I’m joking. A little. As I understand the system, the first so much is taxed at such and such, the second so much is taxed at such and such plus, and so on, so even if you have a very high rate at the top end, that rate only applies after the person is already filthy rich. But again, I’m talking principles, rather than specific numbers. Do you agree that this progressive system still allows the rich to be rich? Does it seem unfair to you? If so, where is the unfairness?
I should say one more thing — the point of the system as I outline it is NOT the redistribution of wealth. The point is to pay for government programs. First, we all decide (through our representatives) what we think the government should do, then we figure out how to pay for it. Some revenue comes from tariffs, and so on, and some comes from income taxes. When we work it all out, we see what amount we need from taxes, and then we apportion those taxes according to the principle I have stated above — that no one should be taxed so much that they have trouble paying the bills of a reasonable standard of living, and that the rate is progressive, but never onerously progressive. A certain redistribution comes about, but as a secondary effect, not as the primary purpose.
I suspect that almost everyone — at least everyone who is not completely hardhearted (sorry NCM) — agrees that there has to be some kind of redistribution. You don’t want to leave people starving in the streets. The question is how it gets done. Some people, for instance, think it should all be done through voluntary and private acts of charity. This idea probably goes back to a time when the Church was the primary source of welfare. But at that time, the Church was a quasi-governmental institution, and what we think of as “government” was quite weak. At that time, probably almost everyone belonged to the Church — sometimes automatically — and the Church more or less levied taxes. So that system wasn’t really so different from the modern idea that the government levies taxes partly with the goal of redistribution.
Mr. Ima, it would be refreshing to have a new or original thought from you instead of the monotonous repetition of your political prejudices. Maybe some evidence to back up your very broad claims, as well.
Weird how the Republicans have made the wealthy the new needy in society; the object of our compassion; the weak in need of protection..So my question is this: Does anyone know where I can send a wealthy person a care package or a turkey for Christmas? And if I make a monetary donation to a rich person in this their time of need, can I get a tax receipt?
“…..And Obama is not really calling for a decrease in spending. He is demanding more government spending and he’s demanding a stimulus…..”.You might be right, and so be it. With the economy in tough shape the remedy is a delicate balance of higher taxes on the wealthy that won’t hurt the economy, eliminate the fat, selective cuts of entitlement spending, and spending on needed infrastructure, education, and research that develops the productive capacity of the nation. It will take a maestro and the wisdom of Solomon, but I think Obama is on the right path.
braindead Premium Member over 11 years ago
Unless you personally use a ‘loophole’ you’ll never see the results of its being closed. Also, if it’s reinstated, it is very unlikely to be visible. -That’s one reason Republicans want modification of ‘loopholes’ rather than tax rates. Tax rates are automatic to enforce and are visible, when they’re increased or reduced. -And, of course, Republicans never specify which loopholes to close and never provide what effect it will have on revenue.-Some time early next week, Boehner will claim that Rebublicans are protecting ‘small’ business. Remember when he says that, he’s talking about Bain Capital and Koch Industries, not about your local dry cleaners or car wash. Small as defined only in the tax code.
chazandru over 11 years ago
So, the negotiations to date are-Round 1Obama- I want it all.Boehnor- I want it all.Round 2Obama- I’ll settle for mostBoehnor- You settle for some, I’ll settle for most.Round 3Obama- I have to have THIS.Boehnor- You settle for a lot, but you can’t have THAT.Round 4Obama- I’ll settle for this, I have to have THAT, but you have to anger voters by telling me what cuts you want to make to entitlements.Boehnor- I’ll settle for a little of this, but you can’t have THAT, and YOU have to anger voters by telling me what cuts you are willing to accept to entitlements.And as the fight goes on-In Obama’s corner we hear Reid and Pelosi-You have him on the ropes, don’t give him anything. You’re ahead on points. And in Boehnor’s corner, we hear McConnell and Norquist-No surrender, don’t back down. The judges are reviewing the fight, we can get the results overturned in 2014 if you just don’t surrender.In the meantime-The American people sit in the auditorium watching. The snack bar closed hours ago, the water fountains are broken and the restrooms are backing up as the house falls apart around the combatants.Aren’t negotiations a beautiful thing?From the movie Wargames- “Strange game. The only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game of chess.”Respectfully,& Hopefully,C.
ARodney over 11 years ago
The GOP knows that the loopholes and deductions will never be closed, but as long as they refuse to propose anything definite, no one will fight against them. As soon as someone brings up a loophole closing (and they want the Democrats to do it), it’ll be shot down. Look how the GOP blocked every attempt to make hedge fund managers pay income taxes instead of using the carried interest loophole. Sorry, the rates on income (especially on interest, dividends, and capital gains) need to go up or the rich will never pay their fair share. Sheldon Adelson DID get something for his $150 million — the GOP are happy to let the Obama tax cuts expire for working people, but will never raise Adelson’s rates.
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
Obama’s revenue proposals are good for starters but not enough in the long run. Mandated spending, structural deficit, and national debt including unfunded liabilities will dictate the need for much higher revenue. Just think what happens to the budget if interest rates go up even a couple percentage points, never mind return to traditional levels. 39.6% on the rich over $250,000 is a start. Once it is seen that is not enough, the super rich, say over $1 million, will need to dig deeper.
larryrhoades over 11 years ago
In these various editorial cartoons, Pres. Obama is often being depicted less grotesquely. That increased respect is good for our country.
Cinci Steve over 11 years ago
And the other side says no new cuts. Unless it for our troops, of course. Other than that, just raise taxes.
lonecat over 11 years ago
The question of the definition of “fair” has come up several times in the last few days. I don’t know that I have the perfect answer (nor, I suspect, do those who pose the question), but here’s an initial thought. No system of tax rates should leave anyone in a position where they can’t lead a reasonable life (given the standard of living where they live). If a reasonable standard of living costs, say, $30,000 a year, then a person making $30,000 a year has to struggle to pay for rent and food and clothing and such, then that person should pay little or no tax. A person making $100,000 a year could easily be expected to pay $10,000 (that’s 10%), leaving $90,000, or $60,000 above the reasonable standard, for extras (such as a nicer house or a fancier car). A person making $200,000 is still going to do okay paying $50,000 (that’s 25%), leaving $150,000, or $120,000 over the standard, which is not too shabby. He’s still much more able to spend on non-essentials than either the guy making $30,000 (who has nothing extra) or the guy making $100,000 (who has $60,000 extra). A person making $500,000 a year could pay $250,000 (that’s 50%) and still have $250,000, which is $220,000 above the standard.
$30,000 , 0%, pays $0, $0 extra$100,000, 10%, pays $10,000, $60,000 extra$200,000, 25%, pays $50,000, $120,000 $500,000, 50%, pays $250,000, $220,000
And so on. There is some “redistribution of wealth” going on in such a system, but notice that it does not attempt to bring everyone to the same level, and rich people are still rich, and richer people stay richer. (I hope someone checks my arithmetic.)
Nimue over 11 years ago
Are you insane? Do you actually believe that those are real statistics and not weasel words designed to make the numbers sound different than the facts state?
‘86% of income taxes’ probably refers to the total in money, not percentage of individual income paid, they have more money, so their taxes are the biggest chunk of revenue, even though they’re not paying as much as they should.
the Bottom 50% of wage earners includes people who have lost their jobs, or who come in below the poverty line. Of course they pay no taxes.
Either you are completely stupid to have bought into that weaselly propaganda, or you think everyone else who will read that is stupid.
lonecat over 11 years ago
Never said that, I just stopped with half a million. Notice I said “and so on”. Anyway, I’m talking principles rather than specific figures, but I’d go for 50% rather than — what is it now? — 32% or so?
lonecat over 11 years ago
Yes, there would be a limit. Never more than 100%. I’m joking. A little. As I understand the system, the first so much is taxed at such and such, the second so much is taxed at such and such plus, and so on, so even if you have a very high rate at the top end, that rate only applies after the person is already filthy rich. But again, I’m talking principles, rather than specific numbers. Do you agree that this progressive system still allows the rich to be rich? Does it seem unfair to you? If so, where is the unfairness?
lonecat over 11 years ago
I should say one more thing — the point of the system as I outline it is NOT the redistribution of wealth. The point is to pay for government programs. First, we all decide (through our representatives) what we think the government should do, then we figure out how to pay for it. Some revenue comes from tariffs, and so on, and some comes from income taxes. When we work it all out, we see what amount we need from taxes, and then we apportion those taxes according to the principle I have stated above — that no one should be taxed so much that they have trouble paying the bills of a reasonable standard of living, and that the rate is progressive, but never onerously progressive. A certain redistribution comes about, but as a secondary effect, not as the primary purpose.
I suspect that almost everyone — at least everyone who is not completely hardhearted (sorry NCM) — agrees that there has to be some kind of redistribution. You don’t want to leave people starving in the streets. The question is how it gets done. Some people, for instance, think it should all be done through voluntary and private acts of charity. This idea probably goes back to a time when the Church was the primary source of welfare. But at that time, the Church was a quasi-governmental institution, and what we think of as “government” was quite weak. At that time, probably almost everyone belonged to the Church — sometimes automatically — and the Church more or less levied taxes. So that system wasn’t really so different from the modern idea that the government levies taxes partly with the goal of redistribution.
apfelzra Premium Member over 11 years ago
Mr. Ima, it would be refreshing to have a new or original thought from you instead of the monotonous repetition of your political prejudices. Maybe some evidence to back up your very broad claims, as well.
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
Weird how the Republicans have made the wealthy the new needy in society; the object of our compassion; the weak in need of protection..So my question is this: Does anyone know where I can send a wealthy person a care package or a turkey for Christmas? And if I make a monetary donation to a rich person in this their time of need, can I get a tax receipt?
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
“…..And Obama is not really calling for a decrease in spending. He is demanding more government spending and he’s demanding a stimulus…..”.You might be right, and so be it. With the economy in tough shape the remedy is a delicate balance of higher taxes on the wealthy that won’t hurt the economy, eliminate the fat, selective cuts of entitlement spending, and spending on needed infrastructure, education, and research that develops the productive capacity of the nation. It will take a maestro and the wisdom of Solomon, but I think Obama is on the right path.