Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Poll after poll supports tax increase


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 161
Date: Oct 1, 2011
RE: Poll after poll supports tax increase
Permalink  
 


soccerguy315 wrote:

When will the 50% of Americans that don't pay any income tax pay their fair share?


 Income tax isn't the only tax that people pay.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 27, 2011
Permalink  
 

Wincester:

I was curious about Burke's statement ---- and surprised to find that in context, he was disagreeing with attempts by constituent groups to shackle prospective members of Parliament with "instructions" they would be bound to follow despite whatever new information or insight came their way after exposure to a broader group of concerns.

Sound familiar?  

Here's Burke in context, courtesy of a Garry Wills column. 

This signals a return to what was known in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as governmental “instruction.” Constituents issued instructions on how to vote, and candidates for office bound themselves to follow such instructions. Otherwise, it was said, how could a member of Parliament be echoing what his constituents thought or wanted? The obvious objection to this is that it makes office holders impervious to changed conditions, new evidence, the learning experience of exchanges with his fellows, personal growth, or crises of one sort or another. It would render parliamentary discussion otiose and ineffectual.

The best attack on instruction occurred when Edmund Burke, standing for election to Parliament in 1774, addressed the electors of his district, Bristol. The idea of instructions had been raised in the campaign, leading Burke to renounce their “coercive authority”:

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Burke makes clear what the real meaning of the Norquist pledge is for those who subscribe to it. They are signing over their souls. This first oath they take, as candidates, makes the next one they take, as office holders—the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution—an empty gesture. That oath, sworn to God, may call for changes of position in a crisis or where better knowledge has become available. They cannot preserve and protect the country if their hands are tied and their minds closed. Their participation in congressional discussion, if that discussion affects taxes in any way, becomes a charade. This is the situation Burke denounced:

What sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments…Authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience – these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land.

That means that most Republicans in Congress have signed a Mephistophelian pact. They have left behind their consciences in the pocket of Grover Norquist.

So I agree with you:  Burke was right.

 



-- Edited by jazzy on Tuesday 27th of September 2011 10:39:18 AM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 24, 2011
Permalink  
 

It's not the goal of progressive policies to alter or fix fundamental elements of human nature.  That monumental a task would call for something on the order of divine powers and could be accomplished only by someone with Messiah-like qualities.

What progressives hope to accomplish is a government that protects the powerless and non-wealthy against the consequences of a winner-take-all world, where the wealthy and powerful take and hold every advantage.  So the progressive approach brought the nation vast public parks and access for all to stunning scenery and open land, not to mention public libraries, public schools, public universities.   

The point of having environmental protection regulations isn't to change or fix human nature, it's to provide some kind of shield for the average, again, those without great political power, against the more monied corporate powers that do not factor in air or water quality for local people living by their factories into the mix.  Protecting people against the baser, greedier aspects of human nature is not the same thing as futilely trying to change or fix it.

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Sep 23, 2011
Permalink  
 

There's nothing incorrect with what I said and I stand by all of it.

As you should. You believe it but it is no more than an opinion among many. You cannot "know" the things you think you "know." I can say that I "know" Thomas Sowell is a crackpot. I believe it but I also know that others disagree. That is about as far as it can go.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Sep 23, 2011
Permalink  
 

The role of the federal government in our lives can't be stuck in a framework designed in the 1770s.
Condescending assertions that people who don't agree with your extreme libertarian views need to be better educated and guided smack of the kind of we-know-what's-best-for-you-peons attitude that you accuse liberals of having.
The government approach that every American should sink or swim on his or her own died in the Great Depression, when children actually starved to death because they're parents had no work and people lost everything, homes, farms to a system that was stacked against them. Would continued education and guidance as to the need for them to stay free of government assistance (thus preserving the founders' vision) really assuage them while they watched their kids wither and die?
How do you keep up an approach llike that in a democracy? The people who voted FDR into the presidency three times shouldn't have been able to vote? People shouldn't have a 20th-century voice in what they expect out of the federal government ?


This series of statements proves my assertions by misapprehending and misrepresenting the founders’ vision. There are so many things wrong with the ideas presented in the quoted statements that it's hard to know where to begin to respond, and a full response would take much more time and space than is available.

There's nothing incorrect with what I said and I stand by all of it.

The fundamental psychological functions of the human mind; the "framework" of how we think and act and relate to one another; the instincts and emotions that motivate us to do the things we do - all of which resulted from hundreds of millions of years of evolution - is essentially unchanged since the 1770s.

The vision that understands that framework and seeks to implements a form of government that accounts for it is every bit as applicable today as it was in the 1770s.
The vision of negative liberty – Thomas Sowell’s Constrained Vision – IS that vision. It is the vision upon which this country was founded. It is congruous with the “framework” of human nature.

The progressive vision of positive liberty - Sowell’s Unconstrained Vision - and the ideas that flow from it, specifically that the flaws human nature can be "fixed" or “corrected” through a controlled, managed society is not congruous with human nature. As a result, the idea of a controlled, managed society has ended in disaster each and every time it has been tried, the premier example of which was the mass murder and genocide of the French Revolution by the people who thought they "knew better" and could "fix" human nature. Twentieth century progressivism is little more than a softened version of that same mentality.

And by the way, this isn’t a democracy.





-- Edited by winchester on Friday 23rd of September 2011 12:36:24 PM


__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 23, 2011
Permalink  
 

wincester:

  The role of the federal government in our lives can't be stuck in a framework designed in the 1770s.   

   Condescending assertions that people who don't agree with your extreme libertarian views need to be better educated and guided smack of the kind of we-know-what's-best-for-you-peons attitude that you accuse liberals of having.

  The government approach that every American should sink or swim on his or her own died in the Great Depression,  when children actually starved to death because they're parents had no work and people lost everything, homes, farms to a system that was stacked against them.   Would continued education and guidance as to the need for them to stay free of government assistance (thus preserving the founders' vision) really assuage them while they watched their kids wither and die?

How do you keep up an approach llike that in a democracy?  The people who voted FDR into                                                                                                            

the presidency three times shouldn't have been able to vote?   People shouldn't have a 20th-century voice in what they expect out of the federal government ?

    



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

Do you really not see any distinction between a president who launches not only a retaliatory war, but a war of choice, and so acknowledges that to pay for this we need to dial back on recent tax cuts

Enough hints to establish it's GW you're talking about here but did he explicitly do that or are you saying it's implicit, given the actions?

And no, the only difference I see is that a bunch of apples decided they'd rather be oranges after all. They've continually voted for both the wars and their funding, and the extensions of those tax rates - all while maintaining they were disastrous. Works for some, I suppose.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

Your argument is a perfect example of exactly the kind of misapprehension I’m talking about. It is nothing more than the same tired old disingenuous obfuscation of the founding vision that's been used for generations to further causes that are in conflict with, and often directly undermine it.

Well isn't that a mouthful. Still just your opinion. Boy, Constitutional law in law sure would have been lot easier if it were as black and white as you see it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

soccerguy315 wrote:

When will the 50% of Americans that don't pay any income tax pay their fair share?


  

They do.evileye Sematics. 

You have to look at the tax rate table and then factor the loopholes/credits/deduction/exceptionsevileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 



You have your "vision" of the Constitution and what the founding fathers wanted for all eternity. It is nothing more than a vision or an opinion

Oh please. Don't give me this decades old relativism claptrap.

There most certainly is ground truth when it comes to founding principles. The vision of the founders, indeed arguably of the entire founding generation, is as clear as can be.

In a nutshell, in rough terms, this nation was founded on the principle, the vision, of negative liberty; the absence of interference by others, especially the government. The progressive notion of positive liberty directly contradicts and undermines the founding vision, by trying to “fix” perceived inequities, the direct result of which is precisely the kind of interference the founders were trying to prevent.

To get a better, deeper, more nuanced understanding of the two visions than the notion of negative and positive liberty try reading Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

And then, with that understanding, look at The Federalist, or read Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution” and you’ll see. There’s no question, none, which vision the founders believed in and did their utmost to try to implement and guarantee forever; yes “for all eternity.” No, they could not foresee every issue, but their vision most definitely can, should, was meant to, offer the guiding principles with which to approach every issue.

Virtually any modern issue we deal with, when viewed through the lens of the two visions – the American Founding vision and the progressive one, or the Constrained and the Unconstrained, to use Sowell’s terms – yields strikingly different suggested solutions; invariably the solution that comes from the Constrained (i.e., founding) vision comes much closer to supporting and defending the Constitution, and the solution which comes from the Unconstrained (i.e., progressive) vision tends to take us further away from it. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the topic of this thread; taxes.

The failure to realize this comes either from the failure of our educational system to provide a proper grounding in fundamental American history, or from the deliberate design to “fundamentally transform” America into something the founders in fact were trying to prevent.

Your argument is a perfect example of exactly the kind of misapprehension I’m talking about. It is nothing more than the same tired old disingenuous obfuscation of the founding vision that's been used for generations to further causes that are in conflict with, and often directly undermine it.




-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 02:12:09 PM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

They’re scumbags if they undermine the Constitution and the principles it was designed to implement and protect.

 

You have your "vision" of the Constitution and what the founding fathers wanted for all eternity. It is nothing more than a vision or an opinion. Visions and opinions vary. Unless you're communicating with the dead, there is simply no drop dead right way to know what the founders would do about any given issue. Maybe they'd wonder how we're still stuck on a document that was drafted in drastically different times and castigate our lack of creativity. Maybe some of them would have changed their minds about some things over the years. You can only opine about such things - nothing more.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

just as long as their judgement agrees with mine. Otherwise, they're scumbags. That about sum it up?

No, not at all.

They’re scumbags if they undermine the Constitution and the principles it was designed to implement and protect. They’re scumbags if they defy what history has unequivocally shown to work. They're scumbags if they continue to try to force policies which have just as clearly been shown to fail.

Keynesian redistributive economics and nanny-statism are an abject failure, and what's more, the "controlled society" they try to effect is in direct defiance of American principles. That's what got us into this mess. And people on both sides of the aisle are responsible.

The greatest economic booms in recent history have come from lower taxes and tight economic policy during the Reagan and Clinton years. And people on both sides of the aisle are responsible for this too.

Revenue enhancement comes from getting more people onto the tax roles; in other words, employed. And THAT comes from making it easier for business to do their thing. And THAT comes from REDUCING taxes; leaving money and capital in the economy so it can be put to use by the people who actually create wealth, rather than taking it out of the economy to feed the government beast.


__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

In other words, elected representatives should follow their mature judgement rather than public opinion and I will applaud..... just as long as their judgement agrees with mine.   Otherwise, they're scumbags.   That about sum it up?

 

Busdriver: Can you point me to a Republican plan for tax code reform that results in revenue enhancement?   (Do you mean the Cain 9-9-9 proposal or something else?)

What I recall is that Obama and Boehner were in talks in July to do something "big" to reduce the deficit, a compromise that involved both spending cuts and revenue enhancements, including changes in the tax code and closing some loopholes.     The Gang of Six, Democrats and Republicans, also came out with recommendations for combined cut-some, raise-some approach that included tax code changes.   There was vociferous backlash from both parties...Democrats wanting more revenue raised and Republicans wanting zero revenue raised.    So it fell apart. 

Cat:  Do you really not see any distinction between a president who launches not only a retaliatory war, but a war of choice, and so acknowledges that to pay for this we need to dial back on recent tax cuts.....and a president faced with an economy teetering near collapse and double-digit unemployment saying, now is not the time to reverse the Bush tax cuts?     Apples and oranges.    



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

hope, I meant no slight against you. It's certain ideas, or thought process, that bother me. I think there'd be a little more agreement and a little less rancor across the political aisle if we all had a more correct understanding of the "principles" we're supposed to be trying to effect. Your comment was simply a convenient launching point from which to express my view.

Too many people see polls as little different from votes; that is, that poll results express "the will of the people" and should therefore be obeyed by our elected representatives. I disagree, and, I believe, an understanding of our founding generation and the principles they tried to effect through the Constitution shows that they did too. Burke is right.

To me, the fact that "poll after poll supports tax increase" is an indication of a mass misunderstanding of what this country is supposed to be about, and that the people polled need a better education and guidance in that regard, and it's the responsiblity of the elected representatives to provide it.

Here's more from that same Burke speech:

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of Constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a Representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; Mandates issued, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience; these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental Mistake of the whole order and tenour of our Constitution.
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html

There's a word for "clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience," the word is "principles."










-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 10:32:20 AM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 

Thank you, Winchester.  My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, the circumstances under which the Affordable Health Care Act was passed are suspect in many people's minds (conservatives and liberals) to this day. It did not help when Nancy Pelosi said that we would all get to find out what was in the bill when it  passed. In this particular case, I think the dissatisfaction expressed by the public in the polls may be considered.

To my mind that is different from taking advantage of one of human beings' basest instincts--envy-- for political gain. I turned from the Democratic party when Al Gore attempted it in 2000 and I have not looked back.

 

 

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Sep 21, 2011
Permalink  
 


Well if the D's can ignore the people's will on the Affordable Health Care Act on "principle", I guess the R's can ignore the will of the people on taxing the rich "on principle"?

Two things:

1) Anyone who thinks it is the job of any elected representative to blindly follow "the will of the people" has a sad misaprehension of the job of a representative. So that's part of the problem right there. It's not about the polls. Forget the stupid polls for Pete's sake. If you want to hang everything on polls then "poll" your kids to see if they'd rather have asparagus or chocolate cake for dinner and then do whatever they prefer because, after all, its "the will of the people."

2) As as far as D's vs R's and doing things "on principle" goes, the "principles" the R's tend to defend are the ones this country was founded on, and the "principles" the D's tend to defend, on the whole, tend to subvert and undermine same.

The root cause of all of these problems is the miseducation of K-12 and beyond about the "principles" this country was founded on and is supposed to be about. Here's a little something about the proper role of the representative:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. - Edmund Burke, November 3, 1774

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 08:33:30 AM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1223
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

I wonder why it is only some Republicans that have been calling for closing the tax loopholes and lowering the tax rate, thus increasing overall revenue. If you really want to prevent people from shirking taxes, then close em all up, make capital gains rates the same as income....but lower the rate, or people will get too drastic of a tax increase. Why are some Democrats playing the class warfare game, to attempt to raise a tiny amount of money on the "fairness" standpoint, instead of going this route which is far more gainful and would have support from all sides?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

When your best argument is that reasons vary for why people are panning your accomplishments, maybe you need to reconsider whether you should have spent so much time doing what you did. Or not... maybe clarification will only come to you when people wander off to the ballot box and all the varied reasons coalesce into one judgement.

Had the Bush administration done the right thing and repealed those tax cuts at the same time we invaded I and A, it would have happened at a better time economically, not when the economy is still struggling to come out from under the housing bubble/Wall Street derivative debacle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Obama, along with a bunch of democrats, signed off on an extension of said tax cuts.

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 572
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

When will the 50% of Americans that don't pay any income tax pay their fair share?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

" It didn't set up competition for U.S. drug companies with Canadians, for example, and for some, it didn't establish a public option to compete with private health insurance companies.  IOW, it wasn't liberal enough, so when queried, favor or oppose, they said oppose.   Doesn't mean they agree with the hard right Republican stand though."

Google paid a fine (2011) of $500mil to settle drug case. Google was in voilation of fed drug law (medicare D) in allowing advertisers to market Canadian sourced drugs on Google searches.

Nothing like freedom of choice, as long as it in favor of the companies that make $$ by limiting choice. 

evileye 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

  The trouble with that assumption for Republicans in a general election is that Americans say they oppose that legislation for a lot of very different reasons.  Some of those reasons don't tilt in the Tea Party's favor. 

 Sure, you have the repeal-only group, but they were always going to vote Republican. 

 Among those who say they are opposed are those who very much want major reform, but this particular legislation was too confusing, hard to explain and understand.    It didn't set up competition for U.S. drug companies with Canadians, for example, and for some, it didn't establish a public option to compete with private health insurance companies.  IOW, it wasn't liberal enough, so when queried, favor or oppose, they said oppose.   Doesn't mean they agree with the hard right Republican stand though.

Just looking at one poll this summer, the CNN one in June,  if you add the number who favor the legislation (39 percent of those polled) to the number who said they opposed it because it was not liberal enough (14 percent), you get 53 percent, which  beats the number who said they opposed the law because it was too liberal (36 percent.) 

Taken from that perspective, which party is ignoring the will of the American people?   All the people, that is.  Not just the conservative people.

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

Well if the D's can ignore the people's will on the Affordable Health Care Act on "principle", I guess the R's can ignore the will of the people on taxing the rich "on principle"?



-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 09:27:11 AM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

I agree with you razor. 

  Thing is, we should have been willing to give up the Bush tax cuts back when we got involved in a far-flung boots on ground war against terror.  It was the height of fiscal irresponsibility to maintain those tax cuts and put the cost of those wars onto the national credit card.  Had the Bush administration done the right thing and repealed those tax cuts at the same time we invaded I and A, it would have happened at a better time economically, not when the economy is still struggling to come out from under the housing bubble/Wall Street derivative debacle.

But no.   As Cheney declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

I don't have the time to investigate the question asked in every poll, so maybe the the answers reflect a tax-the-other-guy (the millionaires) sentiment,  but I think it's way more complex than that.  

There's widespread understanding that the current system is out of whack.   Certain  corporate and individual tax loopholes ought to be closed.   Hedge fund managers and others deriving their income from corporate gains should not pay taxes at a lower rate than  than secretaries.  

What the polls indicate is that spending cuts ALONE, with no revenue enhancements, are not what the American people want.    That much seems pretty clear.  

The notion that slashing government spending means only cutting "waste" or that it can be aimed solely at  ---- to turn the slogan on its head --- programs/services that affect that other person, not me, is becoming more obvious.   

To stick to the pledge not to raise one penny of revenue to appease the anti-government radicals on the far right of the party is going to be a losing proposition.    

Margaret Thatcher said something to the effect: You win the argument first, then you win the votes.    

Obama has 14 months to win the argument, hammering on this issue and the reality behind what tackling the deficit with spending cuts alone would mean to the average American.   Those polls indicate that he can win the argument. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 728
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

I find it interesting that people think the rich get all of these loop holes, and the poor get none. To some I would be considered well off, but because the amount we make, when I do Turbo Tax, I always get the "sorry, you don't qualify". This goes even further for colleges and financial aid. I have 2 in colleges, a 3rd entering next yr, but because of what we earn, we get nothing. Even our DD's IS college LY was @20K a yr, and that is before we pay for books or things to take with her to college. Both of our children receive no spending money from us.

Both of our kids colleges do not guarantee housing after freshman yr, so this yr we were hit with apts for both, utilities, food, etc. and because they are rentals we have to pay 12 months of rent. Since, they were forced off campus, we will take a hit since the college tax bill will be less.

If we made less, we would have that tax loop hole, and would be eligible for grants. Between the 2 kids even with scholarships, and loans, we still pay out about 25% of our gross, not net, GROSS! Yet, the govt says I need to pay more taxes. My kids are not going private. One is OOS, at a flagship public U, but his merit scholarships cover the tuition so he is in essence IS, the other as I stated is IS. 25% of Gross to send kids to IS is gross.

To hit me again, with a tax increase because you assume we make too much, will result in making drastic family decisions. The system is broken, and past the point of repair without scrapping it all.

Close the loopholes...I am okay if you go VAT and say colleges, charitable, mtgs, etc are no longer deductible. However, I bet many people who get EIC and Hope or Lifetime would not feel the same way.  

Additionally, if you listen to business leaders they say the reason they aren't hiring is because of the uncertainty regarding taxes. They can't plan for the future if they don't know what the future holds.



-- Edited by pima on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 07:34:08 AM

__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

Stay tuned for the item in bold at the end .  Our President is caught up in the sound bite, not the reality.  Even Timothy Geinther gets it right.  

If Warren Buffet truly thought the system was unfair, he could write an extra check to the government.  Or take a salary from his conglomerate.  

 

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

To the extent the polls support a tax increase it is because those answering are assuming the tax increase will be on someone else.

I see the simple solution as being repealing the Bush tax cuts. They were wrong in the first place. Taxes should go up for everyone except those who are in poverty.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 728
Date: Sep 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

There is an old joke "don't tax me, tax the man behind the tree".

You have it right bus, I would like to see the breakdown of those polled, were there any millionaires in the poll, or were they people who would not get hit at all?

My bet is you don't have millionaires in the poll or even many small business owners and they are the ones that take the hit. They are also the ones that bring in the most revenue for the country.

Sorry, but I am someone who still believes scrap the current system and go to a VAT system. If you truly say you want fairness, there you go, we all pay the same rate, end of subject. Necessities in life such as food would be exempt, except for restaurants. I would say clothing, but than you really get into the gray areas of should jeans bought at Wal-Mart because that is all you can afford not get taxed, but jeans bought at Hollister get taxed?

__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1223
Date: Sep 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

So what I'd really like to see is how many people support tax increases for themselves. Or if these polls just support tax increases on other people. Hey, I'm all for massive tax increases, personally. As long as I don't have to pay them and it just affects others, I say, go for it! Anyone who makes 1 dollar more than me? 100% tax on them.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Sep 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

Hmmm.....class envy?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Sep 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

 They took a pledge. Can't renege on blood oaths. 

We got another 6 months before things really gets interesting for all the House MOC's and a third of the Senate MOC's. 

Why the oaths. Well when W was elected in 2000 with R control of the House and Senate, They embarked on deficit spending, wars without clear objectives or exit, and little religion. IOW, everything that BC did, They did better.evileye



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 285
Date: Sep 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

 Americans by wide margins do not want to see deficit reduction through spending cuts alone.....so why is that the path Republicans are adhering to?

Once it gets specific about what the all-spending-cuts approach is going to mean to the average middle class Americans, this could be election year Waterloo for candidates who seem dedicated above all else to preserving low taxes for the extremely wealthy.  

I mean, polls can be misleading due to the questions asked, but every single one?

Updated Tax Polls

19 Sep 2011
Posted by Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett's picture

I have previously posted a table showing that people support raising taxes as part of deficit reduction by a 2-to-1 margin over the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Tea Party position that the deficit must be reduced only by spending cuts without a penny of higher taxes. In light of President Obama's new budget plan, which includes higher taxes, I am posting an updated table, including a poll on Friday showing that three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position.

Can/Should the Budget Deficit Be Reduced with Spending Cuts Alone or Should There Be Some Increase in Taxes?
 
Poll
 
Date
 
Some/All Taxes
No Taxes/
All Spending
9-16-11
74
21
9-14-11
48
38
8-26-11
69
29
8-10-11
66
33
8-10-11
63
36
8-9-11
68
29
8-4-11
63
34
8-2-11
60
40
7-26-11
68
19
7-25-11
56
34
7-21-11
64
34
7-19-11
66
32
7-19-11
62
27
7-18-11
69
28
7-14-11
67
25
7-13-11
73
20
6-9-11
61
37
6-9-11
59
26
5-13-11
64
33
5-12-11
61
27
4-29-11
76
20
4-25-11
62
33
4-22-11
66
19
4-20-11
62
36
3-15-11
67
31
12-12-10
62
36
11-26-10
65
33
Average
 
64.5
30

 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard