taxation

[HungLikeJesus]

You mean that we have this huge military and we can't make any money off of it?

[Stormieweather]

Maybe we could charge countries like Libya for helping liberate them? Ie: A war surcharge or something. Fit right in with the corporate atmosphere of profits, profits, profits... /nod.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Um, there is no "revenue" to be found in the military budget. There are costs to cut, to be sure, but that is not the same thing as "revenue".

You are correct. Poor word choice on my part.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Maybe we could charge countries like Libya for helping liberate them? Ie: A war surcharge or something. Fit right in with the corporate atmosphere of profits, profits, profits... /nod.

Or just take their oil, like we did in Iraq, right? Wait.... we aren't taking their oil. Sorry different topic.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

You mean that we have this huge military and we can't make any money off of it?

What, you don't have Halliburton stock?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

A related thought is to eliminate all deductions. Simple? Check. A good idea? Unknown. Sure is simple though.

An example of how this might affect people in unexpected ways: without medical deductions to give us a nearly complete tax refund for the last two years, we would be in very deep trouble. Not putting forth an argument over whether that makes it right or wrong, because I don't even know if it is... just putting a real-life example out there.

[HungLikeJesus]

Maybe if the budget were balanced we could afford to provide public health care.

[Spexxvet]

Maybe if tax rates were higher on wealthier Americans, we could balance the budget. And maybe even pay off some of the national debt, to boot.

There will never be a consensus on budgetary cuts among Americans in general - too many people think in "I" terms, instead of "we". When you throw in the ulterior motives of our legislature, it's guaranteed that there'll never be a balanced budget, without tax increases.

[glatt]

When you start to cut funding from programs I use, like mortgage deductions, that's going to get my attention. I'm ok with my programs being cut, but they damn well better be cutting everyone else's too, especially the breaks the wealthy get. I'm fairly certain most people feel the same way. Most people are willing to do their part, but not if everyone else is getting off scot-free.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

When you start to cut funding from programs I use, like mortgage deductions, that's going to get my attention. I'm ok with my programs being cut, but they damn well better be cutting everyone else's too, especially the breaks the wealthy get. I'm fairly certain most people feel the same way. Most people are willing to do their part, but not if everyone else is getting off scot-free.

Oh I agree, so why is it that nearly 50% of the income earners don't pay Federal income tax again?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Maybe if tax rates were higher on wealthier Americans, we could balance the budget. And maybe even pay off some of the national debt, to boot.

I really don't think that's feasible.
You do realize that there are only 124,647 filers with incomes over $500,000.
If you add in those over $200,000 it totals 1,223,244 filers as compared to 68,400,596 of those under $200,000.
(figures from 2008)
Adjusting the rates on just over a million filers... I don't see where there are enough of them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I really don't think that's feasible.
You do realize that there are only 124,647 filers with incomes over $500,000.
If you add in those over $200,000 it totals 1,223,244 filers as compared to 68,400,596 of those under $200,000.
(figures from 2008)
Adjusting the rates on just over a million filers... I don't see where there are enough of them.

Wait now, are you saying that if we take all the money from the "Rich" and tax them on 99% of their income we couldn't balance the budget? That's not what President Zero is telling us...

[ZenGum]

Well, some of them are going to be a LOT over $500,000. Like ten or a hundred times over.

And those are the incomes they declare after they've wiggled through every loophole the best tax agents can find, which is part of what is up for discussion.

[classicman]

Yes, that is true. I've repeatedly state that the prime source of income for the uber-rich is not income, it comes from capital gains. Adjusting THAT rate could, I believe, be more effective. Loopholes ... if you make over (x)million you get none.


------------Income -----------------# filers
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000-----15,957
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000-----5,509
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000-----6,674
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000----1,047
$10,000,000 or more --------------400
Total # filers ----------------------29,587

Source IRS fiscal 2008

I still think we are looking at getting an awful lot out of a very few.

[BigV]

A couple points...

We don't have to close the whole gap in one move from one group in one check. We didn't get into this hole with just one mistake (or whatever). We will get out by lots of smaller, less than whole amount efforts. And over time. What is our deficit? Reduce it. Reduce it by an amount sufficient that we don't go over some mathematical cliff. (I don't know where this line is, but Greece is flirting in the neighborhood). The deficit, what we spend over and above what we take in, that has to be reduced. And that will let us reduce our debt.

Another source not yet discussed.... while rich individuals certainly have lots of money, we haven't discussed the Romney's favorite "people": Corporations. They benefit immensely from the laws and structures of our country, but I don't believe they pay proportionally. I don't know what their tax situation is like, but there's a LOT of money there too.