Let em expire!

[Woapalanne]

Let the taxes expire??? So, really, just why do y'all think that a reduction in Federal revenues would be a good thing right now?

[packsaddle]

Woapalanne, Do you disagree with Alan Simpson's assessment?

 

Here's a copy of the actual report.

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/12/fiscal-comm-final-report.pdf

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

So letting the tax cuts expire will cost every single American lots of money, but the revenue won't increase what the government collects? Right? I guess that increase tax revenue will just evaporate or to into paying for $200 million dollar/day Obama vacations.

[perdidochas]

Packsaddle,

 

I agree with you on the Fair Tax. It would be the best thing for our trade deficit by making U.S. goods more competitive. It would also be revenue neutral, and easy to adjust, although visible (both a good thing).

[Gunny2862]

YEA! FairTax!

YES, let's do that.

By the way you do understand that the nominal tax rate for what you purchase(above the poverty line threshold) would be nominally taxed at 19% and there is NO income tax. But that is what the nominal rate of income received by the Feds has been regardless of what the tax rate has been for income as people adjusted their back end purchasing and investment according to what their front end earnings burden has been. The shell game has just fronted for political posturing and bad revenue and spending policies by keeping the process from being transparent. Let's kill the shell game and get onboard with the Fair Tax!

[GernBlansten]

Count me on board for the Fair Tax, but eliminate all tax loopholes and deductions, even for charitable organizations. Adjust the Fair Tax annually to meet annual budgets.

[bacchus]

There are 2 basic theories behind governments taxing the people. One is to raise revenue for the govt. and the other is to take revenue away from some people (the wealthy) the level the playing field. In the US I just don't think we are ever justified taking money from people, or their heirs, simply to reduce their capital.

 

Looking at the posts on this thread I see people arguing for and against taxes based on both theories. Revisit your posts and determine whether you are conservative or liberal by which of these theories you subscribe to.

[scoutingagain]

I'd prefer a flat tax with all income being treated the same and no, zero, nada deductions for anyone for anything. The flat tax rate would be simple:

 

National budget/National Income x 100 = Tax rate for that budget year.

 

The recommendations by the deficit commission take some steps towards this approach.

 

SA

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I too am a Fair Tax proponent.

 

Woapalanne, back in '01 under then President Bush congress passed a series of tax cuts that had an expiration date of this year. The reason that the tax cuts had an expiration date was because when they ran budget projections back then, if the cuts didn't have an expiration date then the national debt by 2014 was goin' to be out of control. So they justified the tax cuts by incorporating the expiration date and then only reportin' the budget deficit figures for 15-20 years out. So what will happen next year if Congress doesn't act is that the tax cuts will expire, and taxes will rise back to what they were during the Clinton term (still less than what they were for most of Reagan's term).

 

I said back in 2001 that the budget jiggerin' they were doin' was just dishonest. Then we went and added two wars and a prescription drug plan for seniors without payin' for 'em. And then a near-Depression with a massive bank bailout.

 

So let's see, that's a dishonest cut in da first place plus 4 major unfunded "borrow-and-spend" projects, and conservative BrentAllen wants to keep it up? That's the "modern" conservative for yeh. Why tax ourselves when we can tax our grandchildren or sell the country to China?

 

In terms of Clinton, the only reason that the economy was so successful under him was the same combination that we are about to be in. Republican control of Congress and Democrat control of the White House.

 

Yah, yeh know...

 

I just don't get da whole notion of ascribing the economy to either the president or the Congress. They honestly don't have much to do with the economy. The national budget, yah, sure, somewhat. But not the economy. It's driven by much bigger things, like auto company execs that run their companies into the ground and aging demographics and such. The reason we had a boom in the Clinton years was because of the end of the Cold War in the early 90s reducing tensions and military spending (freeing capital) and the first Gulf War resulting in artificially low oil prices for a decade (freeing capital), and the baby boomers being in their most productive years.

 

Now we're facing two wars, global tensions, and an aging demographic that is a net economic drain.

 

The economy is driven by the people not the government. The president and congress can't do much about it except in small and temporary stop-gap ways.

 

What they can do is be responsible about da management of the government.

 

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh]

In any economy there are only two kinds of income checks, those that come from private industry and those that come from the government. All real wealth comes from the private industry side of the equation.

 

Private industry generates wealth out of producing product and services. It is a self perpetuating system. Even if the system totally collapses, which by nature can't, private bartering will continue and those that can create wealth will prosper over those that don't. Even in a subsistence economy, it self-perpetuates itself. History has proven this over and over again.

 

On the other hand governments rely on the creation of wealth from the private sector to survive. It takes from that resource (taxes) and produces support, protection, and governance. To a certain degree this is a good thing. However, if the government takes too much wealth from the private system, the system can no longer sustain itself and will collapse. The perpetual increase of governance getting something for nothing will cause this collapse.

 

My welfare check means that someone's wealth other than the government entitles me to receive wealth without any investment on my part. A sweet deal for a lot of people. But if the balance tips too far and the system that generates wealth cannot sustain such a burden it collapses, the government has gone to the well once too often and it too will collapse.

 

Governments are not prepared to produce wealth. Socialist forms of governments have tried, but just can't seem to produce sufficient amounts of wealth to sustain themselves.

 

Those that refuse to learn the lessons of those who have tried before us are destined to repeat their mistakes.

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

jblake, that's sorta true, eh?

 

It's certainly true for da welfare programs.

 

Yeh can, however, find some government programs that do produce wealth. The GPS satellite system is an example. The developments made by NASA. There are certain kinds of things like fundamental research and large-scale exploration that are typically beyond the risk-taking ability and capitalization of the private sector, especially when it is focused entirely on da quarterly report.

 

The reverse is also true, eh? It's often bad news for da private sector to get involved in support, infrastructure, protection, regulation, and governance. Those government functions are best performed by government (as we've seen recently in da collapse of the "self-regulated" banking system, or the absurd use of mercenaries in war zones).

 

But sometimes, yeh can find exceptions to that, too.

 

Beavah

 

[Woapalanne]

"Woapalanne, Do you disagree with Alan Simpson's assessment?"

 

I agree with most of it. (I will have to study it in detail before venturing beyond that statement.)

 

However, there have been four major income tax cuts in the half-century that I have been a working adult. In EVERY case, the result was an increase in Federal revenues. Every case. It stands to reason that a major tax increase at this time (which would - beyond question - slow the economic recovery) would have the opposite effect.

 

Do we really need to slow the economic recovery and reduce Federal revenues at the same time? Right now?

 

And, by the way, why are we looking only at income tax revenues? There are many other sources of funds for Federal operations.

[83Eagle]

This country does not tax wealth, or even just "the rich." We tax productivity. As of 2007, the top 1% of INCOME EARNERS paid 40% of federal income tax, a percentage that had increased from under 20% in 1980. Likewise, the top 25% of income earners saw their share of taxes increase from about 72% to over 85%.

 

Over the same period, the percentage paid by the bottom 50% of income earners dropped from around 8 percent to just 3%.

 

In other words, since Ronald Reagan took office, people earning higher incomes have paid a greater percentage of taxes nearly every year. Those incomes come from earning a wage, and from making investments. I know the second one is an evil word these days...

 

So yeah, go ahead, let the tax increases take place next year. After all, they only affect half of the country, and they really mostly just affect the top 25% of wage earners. Particularly if we only let the "tax cuts for the rich" expire as has been suggested so many times in this debate.

 

Now at the same time, every time unemployment benefits aren't extended we're told how heartless that is as well. So we really ought to just keep those going in perpetuity as well, especially because of all the "job creation" benefits that unemployement compensation has, according to Pelosi. Apparently the trickle-down theory to economic stimulation only works when it's government doing the trickling.

 

[Woapalanne]

"Hold off on that second yacht? Heh... "

 

Hey... many of those are made right here in South Carolina!

 

Along with your Michelin tires... and ALL BMW X-series vehicles. (X3, X5, X6)

 

We can use the jobs!!!

 

(And don't forget the GE wind generators and gas turbine engines.....)

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

This conservative was against the prescription drug plan from day one. I was also against the bail-outs. I'm all for cutting spending. At least make the prescription drug program a low-income program. Get rid of COLA for social security, only adjust it through pay-go. It's supposed to be a safety net, not an income plan. No steps, raises or COLA for congress; adjust during census years if budget is balanced, only thru pay-go. Start billing countries for our military protection - in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc. If they won't pay, bring our troops home. Yes, these are small steps, but dollars are made up of cents - start cutting cents, and soon you will be up to dollars. Make congress balance the budget to earn any pay increase. They are entering wealthy, and leaving extremely rich, anyway.