Why do you want to raise tax rates?

[CosmicCowboy]

We could get 1.2 trillion in additional revenue by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.

[boutons_deux]

just like a Repug, NO SPECIFICS on which loopholes, deductions, and tax reform.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://cdn-www.trails.com/imagecache/articles/295x195/tie-fishing-bobbers-295x195.png

[CosmicCowboy]

Democrats agree as well that we could do it by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.

[scott]

Semantics. The tax debate in this country is distorted by a focus on nominal, marginal tax rates rather than effective tax rates. There are multiple ways to skin a cat, and I really don't care how it's done... let's just get that fucked skinned.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bear with me Scott. I'm going somewhere with this...;)

[scott]

But I do think this is a good place for this to be reposted.

cZ7LzE3u7Bw

[scott]

Bear with me Scott. I'm going somewhere with this...;)

Sorry, I thought this was an upper division course. I'll be back in a few years. :)

[CosmicCowboy]

Sorry, I thought this was an upper division course. I'll be back in a few years. :)

OK Damn it! Impatient are we? ;)

[CosmicCowboy]

just like a Repug, NO SPECIFICS on which loopholes, deductions, and tax reform.

8Pp2HaiGh_U

[coyotes_geek]

We could get 1.2 trillion in additional revenue by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.

That's the direction I want to head. Fewer deductions, simplified tax code, lower marginal rates all while ending up revenue positive.

But, to answer your question, the push for raising rates is being driven by the tax industry (accountants, lawyers, etc) who don't want to see a simplified tax code because, heaven forbid, taxes become so simplified that people can do them themselves. It's also due to politicians who want to pander to an uneducated electorate that's incapable of understanding taxes beyond the marginal rate. Pointing to the evil rich guy's marginal tax rate that's been increased is easy for the mob to understand. Pointing to the evil rich guy's tax rate that has decreased and trying to explain to the mob how the rich guy actually ends up paying more because you took away all his deductions will only cause confusion and distrust.

[Th'Pusher]

Fine. Let's get down to the dirty work of identifying which specific loopholes/deductions that need to be eliminated to meet those revenue goals.

[ElNono]

I'd be more interested in closing the loopholes that allow companies to stash money overseas and wait out for some form of tax holiday to end up bringing that back for pennies on the dollar (an effective discount rate)... There's likely way more than $1.2 trillion coming in that way, but I'm also fully aware that's never going to happen.

As far as tax reform vs tax rates, I'd like to see the numbers where this $1.2 trillion in savings comes from. In other words, who shoulders the burden on that. Notice I'm not saying I'm for or against it, just that there's not enough information where this money is coming from (ie: which deductions go away, for who, etc). The devil is always in the details.

[Th'Pusher]

Where are you going with this anyway? Obama has made it clear that raising the tax rates on the top 2% is a down payment and that he is open to tax reform which would bring down rates across the board. If he fold on the top rates again, republicans will just fuck him again. It's not like he didn't campaign on restoring the rates to Clinton era levels for the top two brackets. Your side lost and elections have consequences.

[CosmicCowboy]

Where are you going with this anyway? Obama has made it clear that raising the tax rates on the top 2% is a down payment and that he is open to tax reform which would bring down rates across the board. If he fold on the top rates again, republicans will just fuck him again. It's not like he didn't campaign on restoring the rates to Clinton era levels for the top two brackets. Your side lost and elections have consequences.

See post #10

[boutons_deux]

8Pp2HaiGh_U

Dems have plenty of specifics in the proposal, goes back the campaign.

otoh, Repugs won't even put forth Ryan's twice-passed plan, effectively disowning it.

[ElNono]

This political posturing is also foreplay to the upcoming debt-ceiling debate where the GOP is going to play the "small government" and "deficit hawks" game nobody is buying from them, while the Democrats prove once again that they don't care about deficits either.

[Th'Pusher]

See post #10
I saw post 10. As I said, Obama is open to reforming the tax code as long as there are significant new revenue. Getting to that is unrealistic before the end of the year. So his down payment is $1T over 10 years (e.g. Letting the top 2 brackets revert back to Clinton era levels). With this card up his sleeve, maybe we can discuss some real tax reform next year.

[DarrinS]

I'm for returning to the Clinton era tax rates, IF we also return to Clinton era spending rates.

[ElNono]

IF we also return to Clinton era spending rates.

That would require military spending cuts, thus it won't pass the House.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm for returning to the Clinton era tax rates, IF we also return to Clinton era spending rates.
profound

[Th'Pusher]

That would require military spending cuts, thus it won't pass the House.
It would also require putting people back to work. What kind of solutions does DarrinS have for putting people back to work.

[scott]

I'm for returning to the Clinton era tax rates, IF we also return to Clinton era spending rates.

As a % of GDP?

I'm on board.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm for adding brackets onto what currently exists, and also doing everything mentioned in the OP. The argument Republicans are clinging to is, ":crywhat if it's someone who makes 250-300k and has kids and a small business:cry," (and it's quite frankly hilarious watching the GOP pretend it cares so much about small businesses that make 250-300k a year) so the easy way around it is don't change the rate they're taxed at but just add on more rates.

[boutons_deux]

"quite frankly hilarious watching the GOP pretend it cares so much about small businesses that make 250-300k a year"

they cared MUCH MORE about the few 1000 families that pocketed $T+ from the REPUG estate tax cuts.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

"quite frankly hilarious watching the GOP pretend it cares so much about small businesses that make 250-300k a year"

they cared MUCH MORE about the few 1000 families that pocketed $T+ from the REPUG estate tax cuts.


Thanks for explaining the obvious implication of my post. You must feel really proud of yourself.

[Spurminator]

I would increase tax rates substantially while also adding substantial tax breaks for increasing domestic employment. There is too much systemic incentive right now to move towards fewer workers getting paid less, or hiring foreign labor.

[vy65]

I like my ability to deduct mortgage interest and state property taxes, so no thanks ...

[CosmicCowboy]

I like my ability to deduct mortgage interest and state property taxes, so no thanks ...

Why don't you want to pay your fair share?

[vy65]

Why don't you want to pay your fair share?

touche my friend, touche

srsly though, eliminating loopholes puts the greatest amount of hurt on the people who pay some of the highest ratios of tax to income

[Th'Pusher]

touche my friend, touche

srsly though, eliminating loopholes puts the greatest amount of hurt on the people who pay some of the highest ratios of tax to income

Sure. But they also distort the market. Why does the govt need to encourage home ownership?

[vy65]

Sure. But they also distort the market. Why does the govt need to encourage home ownership?

Maybe, I dunno. How's market distortion fuck me over more than losing my rebate check?

[CosmicCowboy]

touche my friend, touche

srsly though, eliminating loopholes puts the greatest amount of hurt on the people who pay some of the highest ratios of tax to income

and if they didn't grandfather the mortgage interest deduction it will cause more foreclosures. Those early years are almost all interest and not having those tax savings could be the difference that makes them lose the house. average person in the 30% bracket and a $200,000 house thats $3000-$4000 a year

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure. But they also distort the market. Why does the govt need to encourage home ownership?

Because we need to stimulate the construction industry so the illegal aliens can have jobs!

[vy65]

Most people in the 30% tax bracket buy homes worth closer to $400,000 than $200,000 -- those savings are probably closer to 10k.

[Th'Pusher]

Maybe, I dunno. How's market distortion fuck me over more than losing my rebate check?

I don't know either. I read somewhere though a poll of economists across the political spectrum universally agreed the home interest deduction should be eliminated...I'll see if I could dig up a link later.

[Th'Pusher]

Ah, here it is. Was on NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-plan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

[CosmicCowboy]

Most people in the 30% tax bracket buy homes worth closer to $400,000 than $200,000 -- those savings are probably closer to 10k.

I know I did. After I just refi'd I figure the deduction is worth about 6K a year...property taxes another 2.5K a year but it takes money to play. I suppose that's why a lot of the haters in here want to kill everything.

[vy65]

repug asshole

[Th'Pusher]

I know I did. After I just refi'd I figure the deduction is worth about 6K a year...property taxes another 2.5K a year but it takes money to play. I suppose that's why a lot of the haters in here want to kill everything.
Haters? It's the Republican Party that started the conversation around getting revenue through eliminating loopholes as opposed to raising rates. That must be why, to this day, they still can't name a single loophole they'd close. The Republican Party is a fucking joke.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL

[Th'Pusher]

Cc just needs to come to terms with the fact that he does not give a flying fuck about the debt/deficit, he just wants to pay as little as he can in and take as much as he can out.

[CosmicCowboy]

Haters? It's the Republican Party that started the conversation around getting revenue through eliminating loopholes as opposed to raising rates. That must be why, to this day, they still can't name a single loophole they'd close. The Republican Party is a fucking joke.

I'll play (already mixed a drink and burning time till I go to a rodeo meeting)

Kill mortgage deduction on houses over say...$750K

Kill property tax deductions on houses over same

Kill capital gains tax on investments held less than 5 years

Make all these fuckers on wall street pay themselves salaries instead of using cap gains.

Kill all the tax credits for shit like free golf carts and solar panels...again, I take advantage of this shit because it is there, but i'd do just fine without it. Tax credits are like free money...spend 14K on golf carts, get 14K back.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cc just needs to come to terms with the fact that he does not give a flying fuck about the debt/deficit, he just wants to pay as little as he can in and take as much as he can out.

Pusher just needs to come to terms with the fact that he is a jealous little bitch.

[Th'Pusher]

I'll play (already mixed a drink and burning time till I go to a rodeo meeting)

Kill mortgage deduction on houses over say...$750K

Kill property tax deductions on houses over same

Kill capital gains tax on investments held less than 5 years

Kill all the tax credits for shit like free golf carts and solar panels...again, I take advantage of this shit because it is there, but i'd do just fine without it. Tax credits are like free money...spend 14K on golf carts, get 14K back.

Sounds like a good start. When you say kill capital gains taxes on investments held less than 5 years, what do you mean? They be taxed at zero (ridiculous) or regular income? Then the current 15% rate on anything held over 5 years?

[vy65]

Ah, here it is. Was on NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-plan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate


"It just makes no sense that if we have Bill Gates or some very wealthy person, we're subsidizing them to get a very expensive home," said Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

"So because rich people receive a larger subsidy, the price of houses increases so much it actually makes it less affordable for the poorer people," said Luigi Zingales, of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

I'm pretty sure if you're super-rich or Bill Gates, and worth millions if not billions, you're not going to take a 30 year loan out to finance your house. You'll pay for it outright. This article makes no sense.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sounds like a good start. When you say kill capital gains taxes on investments held less than 5 years, what do you mean? They be taxed at zero (ridiculous) or regular income? Then the current 15% rate on anything held over 5 years?

I'm saying stop the manipulation. Let these guys on Wall Street pay themselves salaries instead of "participation" cap gains and let day traders pay ordinary income on profits...I'm not an expert on the subject but I know it could be cleaned up.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm pretty sure if you're super-rich or Bill Gates, and worth millions if not billions, you're not going to take a 30 year loan out to finance your house. You'll pay for it outright. This article makes no sense.

Not necessarily.

Money makes money.

When you can currently buy a home and borrow for 30 years at what any smart person knows will be less than the future inflation rate it's only good business to borrow long and put that money to work somewhere else.

[vy65]

Not necessarily.

Money makes money.

When you can currently buy a home and borrow for 30 years at what any smart person knows will be less than the future inflation rate it's only good business to borrow long and put that money to work somewhere else.

Maybe, maybe not. You could lose up to a mil or two on the interest payments. You'd need an investment to recoup that.

[LnGrrrR]

What about cutting the tax exemption for donations? I know many people will say it will kill a lot of good charities, but maybe the charities that are effective will still survive. After all, conservatives tend to think that everyone would donate out of the good of their hearts, right? :)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

^Conservatives think that if you cut their taxes they'll create an entire middle class out of the goodness of their heart :lmao

[vy65]

Ah, here it is. Was on NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-plan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

1. End mortgage-interest deduction?
2. Tax employee health benefits?
3. End corporate taxes?

[Th'Pusher]

1. End mortgage-interest deduction?
2. Tax employee health benefits?
3. End corporate taxes?

I'm not saying I agree, but found it interesting that liberal and conservative economists found some agreement on these things. The logic behind 1 & 2 is obviously to eliminate market distortion. 3 would allow companies to reinvest all profit back into business or pay shareholders. they caveat on 3 is that they say to tax the individual, not the business.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, eliminate the mortgage interest deduction...that will be popular...

[Nbadan]

by 'market distortion'....you mean home values....home owners vote...

[Latarian Milton]

there're loopholes in the law which you can make use of and achieve US citizenship by faking a birth certificate but i don't think fixing such loopholes would help broaden the base tbh

[Th'Pusher]

Yeah, eliminate the mortgage interest deduction...that will be popular...
The title of the article is A Tax Plan That Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)...

I wasn't suggesting any of these are politically feasible.

[ploto]

I say just drive off the fiscal cliff. The automatic triggers are preferable to the Republican proposals.

[Nbadan]

I say just drive off the fiscal cliff. The automatic triggers are preferable to the Republican proposals.

We've got a winner...but they will save the tax cuts for those making less than $250K....

[coyotes_geek]

What about cutting the tax exemption for donations? I know many people will say it will kill a lot of good charities, but maybe the charities that are effective will still survive.

That's one of the few deductions that should stay. In fact, if it were up to me I'd let people be able to specify some dollar amount of their taxes to be given to some charity the same way we can choose whether or not to donate $3 to the federal election fund. Wouldn't be a huge amount, but something. I sure as hell trust the Red Cross, United Way and a whole slew of other worthy charities to put those dollars to better use than the federal government.

[baseline bum]

That's one of the few deductions that should stay. In fact, if it were up to me I'd let people be able to specify some dollar amount of their taxes to be given to some charity the same way we can choose whether or not to donate $3 to the federal election fund. Wouldn't be a huge amount, but something. I sure as hell trust the Red Cross, United Way and a whole slew of other worthy charities to put those dollars to better use than the federal government.

Paying down the national debt or for healthcare would be better than paying into pastor's new car fund tbh.

[coyotes_geek]

Paying down the national debt or for healthcare would be better than paying into pastor's new car fund tbh.

Agreed, but how to handle church donations is an entirely different discussion IMHO.

[Th'Pusher]

I sure as hell trust the Red Cross, United Way and a whole slew of other worthy charities to put those dollars to better use than the federal government.
Agreed, but there are a shit load of non-profits out there that I can donate to to reduce my effective tax rate that would not spend the money better than the federal government.

[Wild Cobra]

Semantics. The tax debate in this country is distorted by a focus on nominal, marginal tax rates rather than effective tax rates. There are multiple ways to skin a cat, and I really don't care how it's done... let's just get that fucked skinned.
OK, how about this. We do our 1040, 1040S, or 1040EZ, If it reflects less than 2% of our gross, then we pay 2%. If it comes out to more than 18%, then we pay 18%. Anything in between is unadjusted.

[Wild Cobra]

I like my ability to deduct mortgage interest and state property taxes, so no thanks ...
I say that isn't fair. Why should you get a tax break that others do not?

How about a more fair lower tax rate for all, and eliminate all deductions, other than a standard deduction?

[Wild Cobra]

touche my friend, touche

srsly though, eliminating loopholes puts the greatest amount of hurt on the people who pay some of the highest ratios of tax to income
Maybe there should only be one tax rate then.

What about the people who have a nice income, then maybe a bonus, lottery, or something for one year. Is it fair they lose half of that extra money between state and federal taxes?

[boutons_deux]

That's one of the few deductions that should stay. In fact, if it were up to me I'd let people be able to specify some dollar amount of their taxes to be given to some charity the same way we can choose whether or not to donate $3 to the federal election fund. Wouldn't be a huge amount, but something. I sure as hell trust the Red Cross, United Way and a whole slew of other worthy charities to put those dollars to better use than the federal government.

Only if charities were regulated and enforced much tighter, with a regulation that 90% of the income must go to the charity's beneficiaries, and limits on salaries for charity mgmt. eg: that b!tch in FL that brought down Betraeus. Started a charity, paid herself and her hubby extremely well + expenses, then folded bankrupt after a couple years.

[vy65]

I say that isn't fair. Whyb should you bet a tax break that others do not?

How about a more fair lower tax rate for all, and eliminate all deductions, other than a standard deduction?

Because I've invested that money in reliance on the tax code? Why's it fair to fuck over someone who reasonably relied on government policy?

[coyotes_geek]

Only if charities were regulated and enforced much tighter, with a regulation that 90% of the income must go to the charity's beneficiaries, and limits on salaries for charity mgmt. eg: that b!tch in FL that brought down Betraeus. Started a charity, paid herself and her hubby extremely well + expenses, then folded bankrupt after a couple years.

Fine by me.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Paying down the national debt or for healthcare would be better than paying into pastor's new car fund tbh.

:lmao took the words out of my mouf

Giving money to your Church shouldn't warrant a charity deduction. A), there's nothing charitable about doing something you think is required in order to make it into a magical utopia after life, and B) because money given to the Church doesn't go to charity at all.

That's why I laughed at all the dumbasses on this site who worshipped Romney for his :crycharity donations:cry and the fact he :crycoulda paid more taxes but chose not to:cry. Mitt Romney believes that if he gives money to the Church (or charity if you're delusional) every year, he gets his own planet when he dies. There's nothing charitable about making a payment on the planet you're gonna get when you die.