So corporate tax rate at zero, capital gains at zero (or close to it). So, um, who's supposed to pay the taxes now?
THe 1% (minus the uber rich, because of our stupid tax code) and some of middle class unless the tax code is updated.
Going back to the numbers that were posted earlier about the percentages that would need to be taxed on the uberrich in order to make a dent in the deficit, are there similar numbers as to what part of the middle class and up to what percent we are supposed to be taxed that WOULD make a dent? I remain convinced that while no, only raising taxes on the rich wouldn't make a dent, neither would only raising taxes on the middle class. There has to be a combination of the two, a point where X and Y intersect, if you will.
Can someone explain to me what is so terrible about letting the Bush tax cuts expire? I am in favor of raising taxes for everyone AND reducing spending.
My issue, and I am in no way speaking for all, is, okay, it could generate $2.8 trillion over 10 years. What cuts will happen? I havent seen a valid plan except "Oh, ACA will do this if allowed; more money for SS; squirrrel". I think both sides lose credibility since one wants to keep them and cut (not really neutral) and the other, seemingly, want to allow them to expire so as to help the Middle Class. Okay, great, but what about unsustainable spending? FOcus on some other bubbles out there (student loans), improving education, reducing DoD spending, and on and on.
Is the argument really "rich people will just move their money offshore anyway so might as well not tax them." Am I reading that right?
(a) That's just bad reasoning for making public policy.
(b) Talk about class warfare!
(c) If rich people are just going to cheat the system then we just change the system. Perhaps penalties for using foreign tax shelters.
The truth is bad reasoning for public policy? There are decades of data that back up this phenomenon. It would be irresponsible not to consider it when planning for a certain level of revenue. I fully support eliminating some deductions and loopholes and effectively raising the tax burden on the rich (actually I'd like to flatten and simpllfy the code for everyone), but there is no way the gov't would get 100% of the increased tax burden. Not by a long shot. So if that's the plan to get us solvent, it's a pipe dream. So is trying to confiscate their assets overseas. They'll just renounce their citizenship and move. We have to make our tax system competitive in order to maximize the revenues we get.
Caden - I don't think "well people will move" is still good enough. It's like the debate here about school systems, urban vs. suburban - well bye! We'll just move! Not to take a term from the Debt Ceiling Debates, but that logic holds gov't hostage. Everyone has to feel the pinch.
If you're going to take my housing tax deduction, then mofos with Swiss bank accounts need to pony up too. What needs to happen is an overhaul of the tax code. I think that's a unity horse. But, what won't happen is that all the loopholes, deductions and the like will be cut. We all know this. Once you start handing out tax breaks, you can rarely get that shit back. It's like trying to take back a toy from a kid. Well my kid anyway, because Naomi will scream and hit you. She puts up one hell of a fight.
Caden - I don't think "well people will move" is still good enough. It's like the debate here about school systems, urban vs. suburban - well bye! We'll just move! Not to take a term from the Debt Ceiling Debates, but that logic holds gov't hostage. Everyone has to feel the pinch.
If you're going to take my housing tax deduction, then mofos with Swiss bank accounts need to pony up too. What needs to happen is an overhaul of the tax code. I think that's a unity horse. But, what won't happen is that all the loopholes, deductions and the like won't be cut. We all know this. Once you start handing out tax breaks, you can rarely get that shit back. It's like trying to take back a toy from a kid. Well my kid anyway, because Naomi will scream and hit you. She puts up one hell of a fight.
That is why you will find some conservatives in favor of the flat tax/progressive flat tax. No loopholes. No deductions. Teeth for moving money offshore.
Is the argument really "rich people will just move their money offshore anyway so might as well not tax them." Am I reading that right?
(a) That's just bad reasoning for making public policy.
(b) Talk about class warfare!
(c) If rich people are just going to cheat the system then we just change the system. Perhaps penalties for using foreign tax shelters.
I think she said rich people do this, so lower taxes, not that they shouldnt be taxed.
But unless you lower taxes to zero, they're not going to choose the US over the Caymans. And if you lower taxes to zero, someone else is going to have to pay to make up the shortfall.
Can someone explain to me what is so terrible about letting the Bush tax cuts expire? I am in favor of raising taxes for everyone AND reducing spending.
My issue, and I am in no way speaking for all, is, okay, it could generate $2.8 trillion over 10 years. What cuts will happen? I havent seen a valid plan except "Oh, ACA will do this if allowed; more money for SS; squirrrel". I think both sides lose credibility since one wants to keep them and cut (not really neutral) and the other, seemingly, want to allow them to expire so as to help the Middle Class. Okay, great, but what about unsustainable spending? FOcus on some other bubbles out there (student loans), improving education, reducing DoD spending, and on and on.
I am with you on this. I don't see a realistic plan from either side. This is an honest question, no snark, no bias intended: WHY NOT? Why is there seemingly no one out there willing to come up with a plan that both cuts spending and increases revenue by hitting all spectrums? Why can't this country come up with a viable candidate (from either party) that runs on economic issues without a social agenda? I feel like I belong to a segment of the voting population that is seemingly ignored over and over.
Caden - I don't think "well people will move" is still good enough. It's like the debate here about school systems, urban vs. suburban - well bye! We'll just move! Not to take a term from the Debt Ceiling Debates, but that logic holds gov't hostage. Everyone has to feel the pinch.
If you're going to take my housing tax deduction, then mofos with Swiss bank accounts need to pony up too. What needs to happen is an overhaul of the tax code. I think that's a unity horse. But, what won't happen is that all the loopholes, deductions and the like won't be cut. We all know this. Once you start handing out tax breaks, you can rarely get that shit back. It's like trying to take back a toy from a kid. Well my kid anyway, because Naomi will scream and hit you. She puts up one hell of a fight.
That is why you will find some conservatives in favor of the flat tax/progressive flat tax. No loopholes. No deductions. Teeth for moving money offshore.
I'm not sure if I agree with this but I can respect this argument.
Caden - I don't think "well people will move" is still good enough. It's like the debate here about school systems, urban vs. suburban - well bye! We'll just move! Not to take a term from the Debt Ceiling Debates, but that logic holds gov't hostage. Everyone has to feel the pinch.
If you're going to take my housing tax deduction, then mofos with Swiss bank accounts need to pony up too. What needs to happen is an overhaul of the tax code. I think that's a unity horse. But, what won't happen is that all the loopholes, deductions and the like won't be cut. We all know this. Once you start handing out tax breaks, you can rarely get that shit back. It's like trying to take back a toy from a kid. Well my kid anyway, because Naomi will scream and hit you. She puts up one hell of a fight.
I'm not saying the negative feedback is a justification for taxing them at a ridiculously low rate. Just that it's an important factor that needs to be considered. It would be foolish for any individual to plan on receiving a certain amount of wages in a year and base their purchases off that budget all the while knowing there's no way they'll actually receive that kind of money. Ditto for gov'ts. We're perfectly capable of reforming the tax code in a way that minimizes tax avoidance and adequately funds the gov't. Well, gov't spending at a reasonable level, I mean.Historically it's unlikely that we'll ever get more than than an average 18-19% of GDP, so spending has to fall in line with reality too.
Caden - I don't think "well people will move" is still good enough. It's like the debate here about school systems, urban vs. suburban - well bye! We'll just move! Not to take a term from the Debt Ceiling Debates, but that logic holds gov't hostage. Everyone has to feel the pinch.
If you're going to take my housing tax deduction, then mofos with Swiss bank accounts need to pony up too. What needs to happen is an overhaul of the tax code. I think that's a unity horse. But, what won't happen is that all the loopholes, deductions and the like won't be cut. We all know this. Once you start handing out tax breaks, you can rarely get that shit back. It's like trying to take back a toy from a kid. Well my kid anyway, because Naomi will scream and hit you. She puts up one hell of a fight.
That is why you will find some conservatives in favor of the flat tax/progressive flat tax. No loopholes. No deductions. Teeth for moving money offshore.
Tef - It's like the Utopian View of the Tax Code. It's nice to ponder, but I don't think it'll happen. I mean everyone dismissed the committee's recommendations on this. I don't think gov't is really ready to do this yet. I don't know who they are beholden to, but they aren't touching this shit with a 50 foot pole.
Caden - I understand. I just hear that so often, that it becomes standard. At some point we just have to say "Well Fuck It. Let 'Dey Ass Go." You know DTMFA. LOL
That is why you will find some conservatives in favor of the flat tax/progressive flat tax. No loopholes. No deductions. Teeth for moving money offshore.
Tef - It's like the Utopian View of the Tax Code. It's nice to ponder, but I don't think it'll happen. I mean everyone dismissed the committee's recommendations on this. I don't think gov't is really ready to do this yet. I don't know who they are beholden to, but they aren't touching this shit with a 50 foot pole.
THat is because Congress isn't made up of grownups. It is somewhat of a hopeful position, but something that isn't regressive (like sales tax, etc) is needed to improve all people's lives, and bottom lines.