ColonelHaiku
True Classic
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Last edited:
The Progressive Income Tax
- Thread starter ColonelHaiku
- Start date
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Only in a vacuum...
and only to the diehard right, would that second chart look particularly bad. 23% effective rate for the upper quintile. Europeans would cut off a limb for that!
Here is the world-not effective rates but still worth looking at.
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/#partthree
and only to the diehard right, would that second chart look particularly bad. 23% effective rate for the upper quintile. Europeans would cut off a limb for that!
Here is the world-not effective rates but still worth looking at.
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/#partthree
Matthew
True Classic
Of course the rich pay their "fair share". They use less government services than the poor and pay way more in taxes. Plus they (many of them anyway) provide jobs for millions of people who wouldn't be able to pay taxes if they didn't have an income. It's really none of the government's business how much money anyone makes or whether or not they are paying their "fair share" in taxes. The government should set up a tax structure that treats everyone equal regardless of income. If the tax is too high for the poor it's too high for the rich.
Matthew
True Classic
Apparently not, because it's easier to vote in a new government than it is to cut off your own limb.
ColonelHaiku
True Classic
.
Last edited:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Great, fabulous...
who is gonna do it and what are they gonna be willing to give up in order to acheive this.
Until two years ago federal spending in the post war years was, for discussion purposes, not much above or below 20% for any sustained period.
Until two years ago federal revenue was not sustainable much below 17% or above 20%
Now we are at near 26% spending and 15% revenue.
This simple description tells me there is plenty of blame to share-too much spending and too little revenue. Now, the ideologically inclined can claim that those numbers don't mean anything and should not be the basis for our decisions about how much to spend and how much to tax. But what other basis is there? That period covers a lot of ups and downs and in and outs of different governments and yet the numbers were within a range that seems to be 'about right'
So let's start here Spend 20% max and tax(in whatever way) 20% max and then live with it. Make the tax system pure revenue generation and the spending pure spending. Make it all an Amendment if that makes everyone honest. Until we have some goal to direct us and until it is simple and fair there will be no consensus on our national economy.. The 'small government movement' is doing no good as long as it refuses to peg a number to smallness (drowning it in a bathtub is not accurate enough)
As far as 'skin in the game', I could not agree more. There are plenty of perfectly good schemes out there to do just that-there is really nothing wrong with Huntsman's numbers.
All those percentages are of GDP by the way.
who is gonna do it and what are they gonna be willing to give up in order to acheive this.
Until two years ago federal spending in the post war years was, for discussion purposes, not much above or below 20% for any sustained period.
Until two years ago federal revenue was not sustainable much below 17% or above 20%
Now we are at near 26% spending and 15% revenue.
This simple description tells me there is plenty of blame to share-too much spending and too little revenue. Now, the ideologically inclined can claim that those numbers don't mean anything and should not be the basis for our decisions about how much to spend and how much to tax. But what other basis is there? That period covers a lot of ups and downs and in and outs of different governments and yet the numbers were within a range that seems to be 'about right'
So let's start here Spend 20% max and tax(in whatever way) 20% max and then live with it. Make the tax system pure revenue generation and the spending pure spending. Make it all an Amendment if that makes everyone honest. Until we have some goal to direct us and until it is simple and fair there will be no consensus on our national economy.. The 'small government movement' is doing no good as long as it refuses to peg a number to smallness (drowning it in a bathtub is not accurate enough)
As far as 'skin in the game', I could not agree more. There are plenty of perfectly good schemes out there to do just that-there is really nothing wrong with Huntsman's numbers.
All those percentages are of GDP by the way.
Last edited:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
That's just fantasy...
the taxes are going to be progressive and that is all there is to it. The flat tax is not going anywhere and the hard right better start thinking about what kind of deal can be cut around reasonable numbers. Perry getting taken out to the woodshed for simply using the wrong simile about Social Security should be a warning - and he was spanked by Bachmann not Barney Frank (although Barney might have enjoyed that:laugh
the taxes are going to be progressive and that is all there is to it. The flat tax is not going anywhere and the hard right better start thinking about what kind of deal can be cut around reasonable numbers. Perry getting taken out to the woodshed for simply using the wrong simile about Social Security should be a warning - and he was spanked by Bachmann not Barney Frank (although Barney might have enjoyed that:laugh
Matthew
True Classic
Well, the State I live in has a fairly regressive tax system and we went without a federal income tax for many years. Attitudes will have to change but I wouldn't rule it out. We will see how things go in the next year. I have a feeling there may be an emerging consensus for massive tax reform.
The strange thing is we have a president running on a platform of higher taxes. No serious candidate has done that since 1984. He must think it will work out better this time. Maybe he is right. He better hope so.
The strange thing is we have a president running on a platform of higher taxes. No serious candidate has done that since 1984. He must think it will work out better this time. Maybe he is right. He better hope so.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
It won't work out....
but in the end the something is going to give on both the spending and revenue fronts. It will be ugly and complex and just keep the waters murky. The sad thing is that the underlying arithmetic is not so hard once the tax code is just thrown out and the decision is about how much to spend-hell, individuals do this all the time as do corporations. The final number won't make anyone happy but there is a final number
but in the end the something is going to give on both the spending and revenue fronts. It will be ugly and complex and just keep the waters murky. The sad thing is that the underlying arithmetic is not so hard once the tax code is just thrown out and the decision is about how much to spend-hell, individuals do this all the time as do corporations. The final number won't make anyone happy but there is a final number
ColonelHaiku
True Classic
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
The one thing this country has....
in unlimited supply is politically self serving hypocrisy.
Sen Chuck is just the flip side of the Teaparty who is against big government except for the part that pays their pension and medical expenses.
Now all the articles are about how in fact the rich do pay their share (still at rates to be envied by the rest of the rich world) . This of course is a different issue than whether the whole population is paying enough to cover its bills and debt (it obviously, painfully isn't)
So now Obama has left us no place to go-can't really make a case to charge more to the rich(or not one that will convince any but the already convinced) and won't make the case to spread the expense to the sanctified middle class (who by definition should have some money or they wouldn't be middle class) so who is left? Well, the young will just have to suffer I guess. Just got a letter from my alma mater begging money for the support of students unable to afford the coming new tuition structure. An education that was, for all intents, free for me, is now going to cost a kid or her/his family about $120,000 for a four year degree unless they are lucky enough to be able to live at home in which case it will cost about $80,000. That seems fair to me-I worked awfully hard to be born at the right time(the 50s) in the right place (Pat Brown's California). Let these upstarts pay for coming to late to the party:help:
in unlimited supply is politically self serving hypocrisy.
Sen Chuck is just the flip side of the Teaparty who is against big government except for the part that pays their pension and medical expenses.
Now all the articles are about how in fact the rich do pay their share (still at rates to be envied by the rest of the rich world) . This of course is a different issue than whether the whole population is paying enough to cover its bills and debt (it obviously, painfully isn't)
So now Obama has left us no place to go-can't really make a case to charge more to the rich(or not one that will convince any but the already convinced) and won't make the case to spread the expense to the sanctified middle class (who by definition should have some money or they wouldn't be middle class) so who is left? Well, the young will just have to suffer I guess. Just got a letter from my alma mater begging money for the support of students unable to afford the coming new tuition structure. An education that was, for all intents, free for me, is now going to cost a kid or her/his family about $120,000 for a four year degree unless they are lucky enough to be able to live at home in which case it will cost about $80,000. That seems fair to me-I worked awfully hard to be born at the right time(the 50s) in the right place (Pat Brown's California). Let these upstarts pay for coming to late to the party:help:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
None of that may matter....
if these polls are even close to accurate. A lot of support for more taxes.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2368/updated-tax-polls
if these polls are even close to accurate. A lot of support for more taxes.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2368/updated-tax-polls
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
It's a lot of polls....
and pretty lopsided. I'm a little unsure of the provenance here but even accounting for some bias the numbers are pretty hard to get around. As Matthew says though, running on a pro tax platform is hard if you actually square up and say "...oh, yes this means your taxes are going up to, not just someone else's..."
I would love to believe Americans are both mature enough and ultimately practical enough to see that the gulf between what we owe and what we are taxing can't be reconciled except by both diet and exercise. I would love to believe that, but in fact I don't.:help:
and pretty lopsided. I'm a little unsure of the provenance here but even accounting for some bias the numbers are pretty hard to get around. As Matthew says though, running on a pro tax platform is hard if you actually square up and say "...oh, yes this means your taxes are going up to, not just someone else's..."
I would love to believe Americans are both mature enough and ultimately practical enough to see that the gulf between what we owe and what we are taxing can't be reconciled except by both diet and exercise. I would love to believe that, but in fact I don't.:help:
Matthew
True Classic
I'd like to think I'm mature
But I don't think that the Federal government has any business raising taxes. Opposing all tax increases is about the only thing the GOP is doing right.
Really what we need to do is get rid of all these "free trade" agreements, eliminate the income tax, put a low uniform tariff (like less than 5%) on all imported goods and cut government spending by two thirds over the next 20 years. Unfortunately the word tariff is now synonymous with protectionism which gets thrown around like a swear word these days. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what they think it means".
But I don't think that the Federal government has any business raising taxes. Opposing all tax increases is about the only thing the GOP is doing right.
Really what we need to do is get rid of all these "free trade" agreements, eliminate the income tax, put a low uniform tariff (like less than 5%) on all imported goods and cut government spending by two thirds over the next 20 years. Unfortunately the word tariff is now synonymous with protectionism which gets thrown around like a swear word these days. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what they think it means".
ColonelHaiku
True Classic
.
Last edited:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
In the company...
of your other proposals, the tariff thing is nothing at all.
Reduce the government by 2/3? End the income tax? This is just the wishfullest of wishful thinking. We would be more likely to see the government increase by 2/3.:help:
of your other proposals, the tariff thing is nothing at all.
Reduce the government by 2/3? End the income tax? This is just the wishfullest of wishful thinking. We would be more likely to see the government increase by 2/3.:help:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Gosh, denigrating the Tea Party...
a non-Party actually. And they are special because why? They are citizens? Woop-de-frickin-doo! When they start putting thir money where their mouth is they deserve to be taken seriously but as long as it is all about both not taxing them but also about defending their Social Security and Medicare rights, I'm afraid they don't get any more respect than any other self interested group. The UAW has given up more since the meltdown than most of teabaggers, whose actual constituency is rather better off than most Americans. But they are now wrapped in some sanctifying agit-prop from the reactionary right so that does make them different I guess.
Besides all this stuff Obama is proposing is going to go exactly nowhere. This is the man who with a simple refusal to sign his name could have ended the unethical Bush tax cuts-instituted as you may recall (or not) as an 'emergency measure' so as to end run the pay-go rules. If he couldn't even do that much (which required little more than some onions) he won't be doing anything else for the rest of his term.
a non-Party actually. And they are special because why? They are citizens? Woop-de-frickin-doo! When they start putting thir money where their mouth is they deserve to be taken seriously but as long as it is all about both not taxing them but also about defending their Social Security and Medicare rights, I'm afraid they don't get any more respect than any other self interested group. The UAW has given up more since the meltdown than most of teabaggers, whose actual constituency is rather better off than most Americans. But they are now wrapped in some sanctifying agit-prop from the reactionary right so that does make them different I guess.
Besides all this stuff Obama is proposing is going to go exactly nowhere. This is the man who with a simple refusal to sign his name could have ended the unethical Bush tax cuts-instituted as you may recall (or not) as an 'emergency measure' so as to end run the pay-go rules. If he couldn't even do that much (which required little more than some onions) he won't be doing anything else for the rest of his term.