You don't raise taxes during a recession

[coyotes_geek]

I agree but I disagree.

I say we need to go back to a maximum 28% marginal rate for top earners, but at the same time, eliminate nearly all deductions on gross income.

If we are to actually raise taxes, then go back to the 15%/28% min/max marginal rates.

Make getting rid of capital gains rates part of that and I think you're getting somewhere.

[jacobdrj]

Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.



If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.

I actually answered that point in my original post, stating that you can argue that if this is a 'percentage of income thing', then these people are paying 'proportionate' amounts, and that the 'regressive' taxes are added to the income tax, the burden is still less than, or the same as, those only paying the local taxes.

States rights, right? Those taxes still mean less money that has to be doled out from the federal government to bail out the states when they fail to meet their budget obligations, it is just 'boiling up' instead of 'trickling down'.

Again, it seems like an honest conservative would have no problem with this scenario...

[Wild Cobra]

Fund managers' fee income is earned, should be taxed as earned.

WC and ilk are all for the every single poor person paying some income tax, but want to let the corps and super wealthy slide right by paying their share.

Only half correct. I want all people to pay taxes so they have tax increases also when politicians talk about raising taxes. It should affect everyone. maybe they will start voting for politicians who talk about lowering taxes instead of raising them if they have a dog in the fight.

As for letting the wealthy go? no. It's just the system is unfair. Those with write-offs get them, but what about those who don't have enough write-offs? Those earning big bux don't need to pay more or less than anyone else percentage wise.

Think about it. I constantly talk about changing the tax system. I would prefer a consumption tax, but as long as we are going to use the income tax system, I say remove almost all deductibles. If you remove the deductibles from the rich, a 28% marginal rate will probably tax them more than the 39.6% with endless deductions.

[Wild Cobra]

Make getting rid of capital gains rates part of that and I think you're getting somewhere.

Which would you prefer to get rid of. Capital gains, or corporate taxes?

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both. I would prefer to get rid or corporate taxes.

[Winehole23]

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both.

Why?

[Kamala]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable.

[Spurminator]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.

If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.

[Winehole23]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable.

The states will invest in infrastructure, people and communities belatedly, when the harm for not having done so more promptly is already apparent and political will starts building behind the resentment. Cuidense, pues: political vision is expensive.

[coyotes_geek]

I actually answered that point in my original post, stating that you can argue that if this is a 'percentage of income thing', then these people are paying 'proportionate' amounts, and that the 'regressive' taxes are added to the income tax, the burden is still less than, or the same as, those only paying the local taxes.

States rights, right? Those taxes still mean less money that has to be doled out from the federal government to bail out the states when they fail to meet their budget obligations, it is just 'boiling up' instead of 'trickling down'.

Again, it seems like an honest conservative would have no problem with this scenario...

Your logic is incredibly flawed. Half the population getting to claim that the sales taxes they pay to a state government fufills their obligation to the federal government and the other half having to pay both state sales taxes and federal income taxes is not a question of states rights. What you pay in state & local taxes should have no bearing on whether or not you should owe something to the federal government. The federal government funds itself through income taxes. If you're not paying those taxes, you're not paying your fair share to help fund your federal govt. Whatever other taxes you may be paying to some state or local government does not change that.

[Th'Pusher]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.

It's not a good reason, but here is a video summarizing the general propaganda that you hear out of the Cato ins ute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yXINN1tD54

[Wild Cobra]

Why?

For most, it's double taxation.

As a stock holder, I am a partial owner of a corporation. Part of that money is mine. I am already being taxed at the 35% corporate rate. then I get my capital gains from my stocks I invested in and am taxed again, after already paying taxes?

I say just stop taxing the job providers. they can then do a combination of treating their employees better, hire more, and lower costs. In come cases, it will shift products to a compe ive advantage for our goods over foreign goods.

We tax production, then the receiving country taxes consumption. When we buy a product from someone else, it essentially goes untaxed at either end. We need to help restore trade balance, and this is one way to help achieve that.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable.

The politicians always pick the cuts by which cuts will generate support for raising taxes. They will blame the people for being stingy with their money.

[ChumpDumper]

Revenue and capital gains are two different things.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.

I don't have a problem with that as long as we eliminate corporate taxes so stock holders aren't double taxed.

[Wild Cobra]

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.

The difference is these taxes are not tangible to people, because they don't see them. No line on their pay stub saying how much they paid.

[coyotes_geek]

Which would you prefer to get rid of. Capital gains, or corporate taxes?

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both. I would prefer to get rid or corporate taxes.

I want to get rid of capital gains rates and drastically lower corporate tax rates. Dumping cap gains rates would allow you to go with lower marginal rates. Wage earners benefit by seeing their tax rate go down, those with large investment incomes (i.e. the wealthy) end up paying more.

High corporate tax rates serve no purpose. Since all costs get passed along, it's the American consumers who have to pay whatever corporate taxes corporations are unable to avoid.

[coyotes_geek]

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

It is irrelevant if you're trying to say that what you pay in buried taxes should excuse you from having to pay income taxes. Because everyone pays those buried costs. Yet not everyone gets to use that as an excuse to not pay income taxes.

If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

The percentage of the population that falls into that scenario is far less than 50%.

Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.

"Opportunity to save" is more a function of choosing to live beneath your means than it is a matter of tax policy. Obviously there are people at or under the poverty line for whom tax policy does mean the difference between being able to save and not being able to save. But again, the percentage of the population in that situation is less than 50%.

[RandomGuy]

A corporation makes a 20% profit margin and pays 35% taxes on that. .2*.35 = .07 or 7% of the price of that company's goods go directly to income taxes.

Presumedly without that income tax, the company could offer its goods at 7% less, just from the income tax that the company pays on its income, let alone whatever other kinds of sales taxes that are buried in the price of good sold.

If you want to buy bread, you are paying the income taxes of everyone in the chain of people and companies that produced that bread.

I just don't buy the "50% don't have a stake in paying for the government" bit.

[DarrinS]

Analyst: Even Dollar Stores Struggling In ‘Obama Depression’

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/...ma-depression/

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — More stores across the U.S. that offer deeply-discounted products are seeing their sales decline after years of growth amid America’s “Great Recession” — and one analyst said on Monday it’s another sign of even deeper downturn.

While the demand at stores like the 99-Cent Store or Dollar Tree is still relatively high, the biggest chains in the nation have fallen short of Wall Street’s expectations for several months, a trend that may prove even more ominous for the economy at large.

“I think what’s going on in those stores is that we are in a depression for 80 percent of Americans,” top retail analyst Howard Davidowitz told KNX 1070.

America’s three largest discount chains — Dollar General Corp., Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Dollar Tree Inc. — all recently missed their quarterly earnings targets.

Davidowitz pointed to the weakness of the dollar and a gloomy consumer outlook as some of the factors behind the stores’ slump.

“In those stores, somebody comes in with $12 to do all their shopping,” said Davidowitz. “The person who used to come in with $12 now comes in with $8.”

“In other words, the economy is continuing to be worse, the Obama depression continues to explode,” he added.

Analysts say rising food and transportation prices are likely eating into the profit margins of discount stores, which risk driving away price-sensitive customers with any potential price hikes.

Core customers at most U.S. discount chains typically have a household income of $40,000 or less.

[RandomGuy]

It is irrelevant if you're trying to say that what you pay in buried taxes should excuse you from having to pay income taxes. Because everyone pays those buried costs. Yet not everyone gets to use that as an excuse to not pay income taxes.

The percentage of the population that falls into that scenario is far less than 50%.

"Opportunity to save" is more a function of choosing to live beneath your means than it is a matter of tax policy. Obviously there are people at or under the poverty line for whom tax policy does mean the difference between being able to save and not being able to save. But again, the percentage of the population in that situation is less than 50%.

So you do admit that we all have a stake in how much government costs.

Fair enough.

I don't see how increasing income taxes on people who already pay a good chunk of what they earn to taxes is going to make any difference.

Quite frankly it seems like class warfare by the rich on everybody else, especially given the increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 20 years.

[DarrinS]

Quite frankly it seems like class warfare by the rich on everybody else, especially given the increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 20 years.

It's a choice between "kids' safety" and "tax breaks for corporate jets". -BHO

[RandomGuy]

Analyst: Even Dollar Stores Struggling In ‘Obama Depression’

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/...ma-depression/

Meh. Davidowitz has been ing about whoever is in power for decades.

Simply because he wants to use phrases like "Obama depression" though, ensures that people will talk to him when they want someone to pay attention to their article, because he is gauranteed to say something outrageous.

President Davidowitz says, he would immediately eliminate the Bush tax cuts. (He thinks Bush was an idiot, too, by the way). He would then address the real cause of our financial problems: En lement spending, specifically, Medicare and Medicaid. He would avert a dollar crisis. He would also cut military spending.

Would these moves hurt the economy? Yes, Davidowitz says, in the short-term, they might. But in the long-term, they'd be a huge step in the right direction. Our international trading partners and investors would see immediately that we had finally gotten serious about addressing our problems, and this would lead to a surge in the dollar and direct investment. And the investment, in turn, would produce the jobs that we so desperately need. And they would avert a dollar crisis that Davidowitz views as looming catastrophe.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...72825-462.html

The guy says what he thinks, and people lap it up, when he says something they agree with.

Since it is your flavor kool aid, knock yourself out.

Just be sure to note that the same guy says that eliminating the Bush tax cuts should be a priority.

[Winehole23]

Raise taxes? That's socialism!

[RandomGuy]

It's a choice between "kids' safety" and "tax breaks for corporate jets". -BHO

Asshats like yourself like to blather about the evils of class warfare, but seem quite content to ignore the fact that the rich are already actively fighting that war, via useful idiots like yourself who aspire to that level of income.

You also seem to be missing the fact that they are winning, and it isn't really helping the country any.