Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I get that kids cost money. I'm not going to be even slightly popular when I say it wasn't my choice that others have those kids, so I don't know why the refunds increase with every decision someone makes to have kids.

It makes sense to subsidize increased population because:

- The government has to populate the next generation of Iraq and Afghanistan babysitters.

- Corporations need cheap labor. A higher population will increase competition for jobs, pressuring salaries down.

- When regulation is reduced, more workers will be killed/injured on the job, and replacement units workers will be required.

[HungLikeJesus]

And don't forget that Tuesdays we get Soylent Green.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

... After that a simple 1% up to $XX,000 and 20/25/30% across the board on every dollar beyond that. 1 form, done and dusted.

Here's the problem as I see it. The ideology bumps up against reality.

Federal income taxes currently generate about $1.2 trillion in revenue (the rest comes from corporate taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, etc) for a $3 trillion budget and your proposal would reduce that revenue significantly and spending cuts would need to be much deeper (not just waste, fraud, redundancies, etc.) than the economy could bear or that the people would likely accept OR the rates would need to be higher than you suggest and middle class taxpayers would be adversely impacted much more than the wealthy.

It will have several other impacts as well.

State income taxes would likely increase to fund essential or beneficial programs that came under the federal knife.

And, by ending the deductions for charitable donations, there would be less incentive to make those donations, particularly among the wealthy, meaning that the charitable sector will also see less revenue and be unable to make up the difference resulting from those deep federal cuts.

Finally, the reason why every industrial economy in the world has a system of progressive taxation is simple and its not as a result of the influence of lobbyists or the taxing authority, but because it is the best system to fund government services and spread the cost so that no one is burdened with taxes beyond their means.

[lookout123]

How exactly would the revenue be cut? I've repeatedly stated I'm not looking for tax cuts. While the marginal rates would likely be cut for some I think we've already established that those very same people are already paying significantly less than those marginal rates currently.

[Fair&Balanced]

Its either/or

Either revenue would be significantly reduced or the middle class taxpayers would have to pay significantly more than they presently pay.

The current "effective" federal income tax rate for the middle two brackets, i.e. the middle class, is in the 5-10% range and you want to raise that to 20% or more?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Either revenue would be significantly reduced or the middle class taxpayers would have to pay significantly more than they presently pay.

I would support this.

[lookout123]

Define middle class. I haven't put a fixed number on it because I don't know what it will actually have to be. I believe it will be lower than you actually do if everyone is actually paying on it.

You want to extend the 1% rate out to $65, 70, 80? I don't really care. I care that everyone pays something and that the new system is simple, easy to understand, and impossible to manipulate.

So if a family earning $75K now pays out an average of 10% that is $7,500. That same family if the cutoff is at $60K would pay $3,600 at the 20% rate or $5,100 at the 30% rate. Either way, I don't really care because they'll be using the same scale as their neighbor regardless of kids, retirement plans, or any other tax deductions.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Define middle class. I haven't put a fixed number on it because I don't know what it will actually have to be. I believe it will be lower than you actually do if everyone is actually paying on it.

You want to extend the 1% rate out to $65, 70, 80? I don't really care. I care that everyone pays something and that the new system is simple, easy to understand, and impossible to manipulate.

So if a family earning $75K now pays out an average of 10% that is $7,500. That same family if the cutoff is at $60K would pay $3,600 at the 20% rate or $5,100 at the 30% rate. Either way, I don't really care because they'll be using the same scale as their neighbor regardless of kids, retirement plans, or any other tax deductions.

By middle class, I am referring to the middle brackets, with a marginal rate of 25-30% but an effective rate of 3-6%.

Depending your cut-off, they would pay significantly more as would everyone but the top 1% whose current effective rate is about 20%.

[Fair&Balanced]

By bumping into reality, consider your situation and Clodfobble's described above, where you have an effective federal income tax rate of 0% or the millions of middle class families with combined income in the range of $100K - $200K, with circumstances resulting in fewer (but still significant) deductions and with an effective rate of around 5%.

Putting aside the issue of "fairness" on which we disagree. Do you really think you can sell to the American people the fact that their taxes will probably increase while acknowledging that taxes for the top 1% of taxpayers wont?

The Mercenary may buy it, but I dont think you will find a groundswell of support among most working families.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I won't even get into the whole overpopulation thing.

Then I will. All the deductions should go out the window if we're serious about this.

[HungLikeJesus]

I think there should be a child tax - with an adder for an extra head.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

Then I will. All the deductions should go out the window if we're serious about this.

Drop the rates and I would completely support this. No deductions for anyone, regardless of income.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

......but I dont think you will find a groundswell of support among most working families.

Not important. Raise it and eliminate the deductions. Everyone pays an equal amount of tax.

[TheMercenary]

Well this settles it. Obamy is Irish....

http://www.vevo.com/watch/corrigan-b...a/IEUV70800012

[TheMercenary]

Ouch. The tail wagging the dog for sure....

The controversy over the new film rose after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported on Sunday that Ms. Bigelow’s film would be released in October 2012, just before the presidential election. She also wrote that Mr. Boal and Ms. Bigelow had been given “top-level access to the most classified mission in history,” and that the movie was “perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost” to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...medium=twitter