Reply With Quote
this is the bull Pelosi was peddling back when dubya was the prez:
http://www.okfairtax.org/dem_leadership_letter.pdf
We always hear about tax simplification from the right, but I am curious what would be considered tax simplification from the left? Not a setup, just curious.
this is the bull Pelosi was peddling back when dubya was the prez:
http://www.okfairtax.org/dem_leadership_letter.pdf
The US tax code, like the economy as a whole, has been rigged by the corporations and wealthy to their advantage. Complexity, opacity are always the goals.
Reform is simply, practically impossible.
Repug "reform" is nothing but more tax cutting for the corporations and wealthy, towards extreme regressiveness, to starve the govt of any power to protect Human-Americans and the environment against corporate predations.
So do you agree it's a reason to take away all deductions above a certain dollar amount?
That's one approach, but I won't get into purely imaginative, sterile tax policy discussions since "Reform is simply, practically impossible."
As with for-profit disease care, the US tax policies are so mind-bogglingly complex, opaque, ossified, and enormous, it's hard to know where to start.
Anyway, the Repugs, as they have sworn to Grovel-Before-Me tyQuist, will block any tax increases, closing any loopholes, cutting any DoD expenditures, taxing the finance industry, etc, etc.
You People simply refuse to see how irredeemably ED AND UN ABLE America and it's 95% are, as well as not having ANY PRACTICAL suggestions how to proceed, which means you really agree America is ed and un able.
How about this.
What ever tax deductions someone has, everyone pay a minimum 2%, minimum 5% above $40k, and minimum 10% above 60k, and a maximum of 15%?
Um..no.
Address the tax loopholes.... redefine income to include investment income, eliminate any deductions for income over a defined limit (500k?) for a start. Then we can begin to work brackets.
Shoot me down Winehole! Scott, you can take the next shot.
those sound like good ideas to me, TB
Dammit!
We must be making progress since the top 5% are un ed when it used to be only the top 1% tbh. Thanks Obama.
0.1%, 1%, 95%, whatever.
95%ile is $185K+, 3x+ the housedhold median.
the % is symbolic, not literal, of Wealthy Class Warfare on the non-wealthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...reform/284525/The reaction by Democrats was in part a tribal reaction: If he is for it, we can't be. For many of them, Camp in other venues has been a hard-driving partisan, shutting out Democrats from actions on the committee (in sharp contrast from how Dan Rostenkowski treated Republicans during consideration of tax reform leading up to 1986.) Camp has vied with Darrell Issa in over-the-top partisan actions and rhetoric against the IRS. But even so, this was a serious plan with a lot for Democrats to like.
The other element, I suspect, is that Democrats don't have a lot of interest in tax reform that is revenue neutral. It will inevitably create winners and losers, and some of those losers will be Democratic voters, especially as rate reductions lead to capping or eliminating popular deductions like the state and local tax deduction or the one for mortgage interest. Democrats, including the president, see tax reform as a vehicle to get revenues, as part of a larger bargain to reduce the long-term debt. Embrace revenue-neutral tax reform, and you give up the best vehicle to achieve the greater goal.
For Republicans in Congress, any impulse to embrace or even say good things about the Camp plan was quashed quickly by the GOP monied interests whose oxen were gored by the plan—including hedge-fund billionaires hit by the changes in tax treatment of carried interest (remember, an idea that billionaire Stephen Schwarzman once equated to Hitler invading Poland), and the big banks hit by the Camp idea to tax the "too big to fail" financial ins utions that escaped unscathed in the financial meltdown. As Chait details in his column, "Wall Street unleashed a furious campaign to destroy and isolate Camp, canceling all fundraisers for the party until his fellow members agreed to denounce his heresy." Soon, a passel of House Republicans, Camp's friends and neighbors, sent him a letter denouncing his plan, and embracing their version of crony capitalism.
The problem goes beyond the usual bipartisan dynamic of special interests jerking the chains of their buddies on Capitol Hill.
But the problem goes beyond the usual bipartisan dynamic of special interests jerking the chains of their buddies on Capitol Hill. For Republicans in Congress, problem-solving is simply not high on the priority list. Real efforts at problem solving require recognizing that your desire to fulfill your ideological beliefs must fit the tradeoffs and realities of the real world. And it means that ideas—when subject to tests like making the numbers add up without manipulation or rank dishonesty—require adjustments, compromises, and pain for your friends and supporters.
There is a laziness that comes with being in the minority—you don't have to make tough choices; you can simply rail against everything done by the majority. Governing means making tough choices, and it is clear that despite their House majority, congressional Republicans are not ready to do that, either on immigration, tax reform, jobs programs, or health policy. Nor have they been willing to embrace the innovative ideas coming from the conservative intellectual and policy community.
We will see, in coming weeks, if that assertion is wrong across the board. Will Paul Ryan and the House Republicans come up with their own budget this year? And most importantly, will the promise to come up with a real health-reform alternative—meaning not vague principles or a set of talking points, but a real bill, scored by the Congressional Budget Office and subject to strict scrutiny by health policy analysts and the provider community—be met? The early returns are not promising; instead of a bill this spring, we are going to see a "listening tour" around the country. "Listening tour" is politispeak for "We are not serious.
"Will Paul Ryan and the House Republicans come up with their own budget this year?"
Not bad. Although I would rather see capital gains over some arbitrary amount, let's say 100k, taxed as income and below that amount not taxed at all. Make it easier for the little guy to build wealth.
FTT, financial transaction tax, and a significant one, to dampen the scam of high-speed trading.
You mean the little guy who sits at home all day trading stocks while his wife provides for his family?
Sure, or any other little guy.
I'm curious what people would think of something like the following:
Eliminate all deductions except for the standard deduction, which could then be set as a percentage of gross income (let’s say 10%)
Eliminate all tax credits except for the EIC, and child tax credit, but limit the child tax credit at 2 children to encourage zero population growth in an already overpopulated county, as well as discourage the people who spit out kid after kid just for the free money.
Set marginal tax brackets at a factor of 10 for earned income:
0% up to $10k,
15% on $10k+ to $100k,
20% on $100k+ to $1mm
25% on $1mm+ to $10mm
30% on $10mm+ to $100mm
35% on $100mm to $1B
40% on $1B+ (rate capped @ 40%)
Apply the same principal as above for unearned income, but revert rates by one bracket:
0% up to $100k
15% on $100k+ to $1mm
20% on $1mm+ to $10mm
25% on $10mm+ to $100mm
30% on $100mm to $1B
35% on $1B+ (rate capped @ 35%)
Apply the same as above for corporate tax rates, but reduce rates by 5%.
0% up to $100k
10% on $100k+ to $1mm
15% on $1mm+ to $10mm
20% on $10mm+ to $100mm
25% on $100mm to $1B
30% on $1B+ (rate capped @ 30%)
*I obviously don’t have the resources to calculate how this would increase or decrease tax revenues. The rates I’ve used are better suited to display a concept of how one could drastically simplify the tax code, but still keep it progressive enough to not over-burden the poor.
Basically a flat progressive tax code which I like. More brackets on earned income starting with only 5% on the lower end, and a max rate of 30% for all types of income would be better imo.
It'll never happen but we can pretend our govt is capable of making sense.
the tax system is so rigged now to favor the 1% and corps as the owners of Congress that the tax system is untouchable, except to lower the taxes on the 1% and corps and raise taxes on the 99% (aka, Ryan's multiple budgets, including ALL his next ones).
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/0...bank-tax-idea/More than 50 Republican lawmakers sent a letter Friday to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) saying they are “deeply concerned” about a proposed tax on banks they worry would undermine lending and curb economic growth.
The letter from Rep. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee and co-signed by 53 House Republicans is the latest GOP pushback on Mr. Camp’s Feb. 26 proposal to overhaul the tax code. Included in the proposal is a quarterly tax on financial firms with assets greater than $500 billion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
