Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.
Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
17 Oct 13
It would be good for the US economy, but I don't see a realistic political scenario where a tax hike on top incomes is likely. Perhaps after the 2014 midterms, if the GOP is punished in elections for the shutdown/debt ceiling debacle. But history shows that the voter's memory is abysmally poor.
Originally posted by moon1969the companies that make real money don't pay tax, apple, google etc, they hide the money offshore, I suspect the same will be true of individuals.
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.
Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
Originally posted by moon1969That presumes that the TEA party (4 Senators, and about 80 Reps) are blamed for the whole fiasco, which most serious Americans blame on a lack of leadership from the President, who has much greater power than all the TEA party reps together.
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.
Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
Immigration reform is unpopular on both sides of the isle, and background checks are nearly universal already. How are you going to get labor to go along with amnesty for already illegals, and the fact that millions more will be invited by the amnesty provisions?
How will the background checks ever be totally "universal" without impairing the ability of everyday law abiding Americans to sell their property? And will it ever have any effect on underground, black market sales of weapons (Like the BATF/Justice Department Fast and Furious), or weapons smuggled in, which like drugs will fill the demand if legal weapons are made too hard to get or sell?
Is it probable that this progressive idea will be, like most, jumping out of the frying pan into the fire? Will it make guns more numerous as well as more expensive, and make dealing in them very profitable?
The only good thing I see coming from this is the proposal to get moving on a real budget proposal.
Originally posted by quackquackAs has been already mentioned the uberwealthy have larger reserves, but there are so few of them, and they also have the mobility to hide and shelter their wealth.
Hopefully as we borrow more and more and more to pay for new toys that we call "entitlements", it is time to broaden the tax base and see that everyone pays for things that we used to be able to get by without.
The great untapped resource is the lower income, and middle class who in many cases don't pay any income taxes. The massive underground economy tends to make them look a lot worse off than they are. A lot of low wage, and surprisingly high wage workers are under the table.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEither their memory is poor, or in some cases they remember differently than the establishment tries to teach them.
It would be good for the US economy, but I don't see a realistic political scenario where a tax hike on top incomes is likely. Perhaps after the 2014 midterms, if the GOP is punished in elections for the shutdown/debt ceiling debacle. But history shows that the voter's memory is abysmally poor.
17 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignThat the lower income brackets don't pay much tax is, of course, the basis of the sensible rational system of progressive taxation.
As has been already mentioned the uberwealthy have larger reserves, but there are so few of them, and they also have the mobility to hide and shelter their wealth.
The great untapped resource is the lower income, and middle class who in many cases don't pay any income taxes. The massive underground economy tends to make them look a lot worse off than they are. A lot of low wage, and surprisingly high wage workers are under the table.
The solution to the first problem is to eliminate the loopholes that allow the uberwealthy to hide and shelter their wealth.
17 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignThe real establishment consists of wealthy corporate interests, who sometimes (especially in America) co-opt politicians but in general have done their best simply to render them powerless. The Tea Party is a classic case of the corporate establishment co-opting the poor and lower middle classes too, getting them to vote and campaign against their own economic interests. An astroturf movement, I think they call it.
Either their memory is poor, or in some cases they remember differently than the establishment tries to teach them.
17 Oct 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeProgressive taxation is neither sensible, nor rational. It is the basis of political division of people into economic groups, each disliking the other irrationally.
That the lower income brackets don't pay much tax is, of course, the basis of the sensible rational system of progressive taxation.
The solution to the first problem is to eliminate the loopholes that allow the uberwealthy to hide and shelter their wealth.
Flat taxation is fair, uncomplicated, and not political. It still results in significantly higher taxes being paid by the wealthy, but lacks the coercive and pejorative attacks on the successful that marks the progressive system.
The progressive system promotes hypocrisy, double talk, antagonism between groups, even hatred among families where some are more successful than others.
I could agree to the elimination of loopholes, but it should be across the board, so that nobody can hide income, or the best way to eliminate income as the basis for taxation and move to consumption.
17 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignThe government likes loopholes as it is a method to sell/ exchange benefits to favored group. We should all be very suspect of loopholes because they are essentially governmental side deals when all should be treated the same.
Progressive taxation is neither sensible, nor rational. It is the basis of political division of people into economic groups, each disliking the other irrationally.
Flat taxation is fair, uncomplicated, and not political. It still results in significantly higher taxes being paid by the wealthy, but lacks the coercive and pejorative attacks on the suc ...[text shortened]... e income, or the best way to eliminate income as the basis for taxation and move to consumption.
Originally posted by quackquackPrecisely. I have a copy of the tax code from almost 30 years ago, which is as thick as the Phone book printed on tissue thin paper, 17,000 pages plus.
The government likes loopholes as it is a method to sell/ exchange benefits to favored group. We should all be very suspect of loopholes because they are essentially governmental side deals when all should be treated the same.
It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.
I would prefer a consumption tax, with only residential home and food being excluded. The amount of record keeping, compliance and enforcement saved would be astounding, all of which would promote business activity, and economic growth.
Instead, we move in the opposite direction, with the IRS growing to enforce the ACA.
Originally posted by normbenignLook at the sales tax exemption list of any state that has a sales tax and you will see a patchwork of exemptions for medical goods, unprepared food, textbooks, the Bible, clothing and other items during "tax holidays" etc. etc. Example:
Precisely. I have a copy of the tax code from almost 30 years ago, which is as thick as the Phone book printed on tissue thin paper, 17,000 pages plus.
It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.
I would prefer ...[text shortened]... growth.
Instead, we move in the opposite direction, with the IRS growing to enforce the ACA.
http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/0A984AD9-6146-42E9-A0DD-A58CD9E653CC/0/Section12_36_2120.pdf
The same political pandering is already in place in state sales and use taxes, and would be at the federal level.
Originally posted by normbenignI find it difficult to imagine any basis for taxation which is "not political". A flat tax is premised on the ideological assumption that the rich deserve their wealth (ie, it assumes that people get, in financial terms, what they deserve). I fail to see how this assumption is a non-political one.
It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.
I would prefer a consumption tax, with only residential home and food being excluded. The amount of record keeping, compliance and enforcement saved would be astounding, all of which would promote business activity, and economic growth.
The reasons for your proposal for the exclusion of residential home and food from your consumption tax are not self-evident. If these things are considered essential, then why not exclude clothes from the tax too? One can't go about naked. What about luxury foods such as caviare? They're clearly not essentials...
Originally posted by normbenignImmigration reform has already passed the Senate. Hopefully, the bill will go to the House floor where the democrats and rational Republicans will combine to give a majority to pass the bill. Again, let's cross our fingers.
That presumes that the TEA party (4 Senators, and about 80 Reps) are blamed for the whole fiasco, which most serious Americans blame on a lack of leadership from the President, who has much greater power than all the TEA party reps together.
Immigration reform is unpopular on both sides of the isle, and background checks are nearly universal already. ...[text shortened]... only good thing I see coming from this is the proposal to get moving on a real budget proposal.