Everyone should pay federal income taxes.

[Tommy Duncan]

One thing that both parties seem to agree on is that it's a good idea to remove people at the lower end of the economic scale from the federal tax rolls. I disagree. I think it is important that everyone share a piece of the cost of government and the benefits it provides. Sure, keep it progressive. Make it 1% for those at the bottom. I don't think it's a good idea to create a class of people who can vote themselves benefits without paying anything.

Some would like to apply this concept to the federal en lement programs and exempt those at the bottom from paying for those as well.

Also, it's not that hard to simplify the tax code. Anyone could create a tax return which could be filled out on a postcard. Anyone, of course, except if you happen to be a member of Congress.

[Nbadan]

I think that all this talk about a National Sales Tax is just political year rhetoric by Dubya and Rove. Even Dubya backed off the idea a few days later in yet another in a long line of recent flip-flops.

Everyone pays taxes, but some people have child credits, personal and family exceptions, and Earned Income credits that push them into net refund amounts, and I think that is where your problem with taxes seems to be. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing for large families to receive refund checks, even on money they didn't pay into the system. A deduction for the poor should mean no less than a deduction for the rich.

Corporations are allowed to deduct, or rather, accrue all their business expenses. C.E.O.'s are payed in stock options to avoid paying taxes. A speculative loss here to avoid paying taxes on a large gain there. Tax credits and federal subsidies.

Instead of picking on the poor why aren't conservative talking about the welfare-state that corporations have built in America for themselves?

[Tommy Duncan]

Not everyone pays federal income taxes. Something approaching 50% of those with income do not.

Sure, I'd like for 'corporate welfare' to be done away with as well.

[Nbadan]

Not everyone pays federal income taxes. Something approaching 50% of those with income do not.

I don't think that taking token amounts from people who make less than $12,000 per year is gonna do much good. Tax refunds are usually a stimulus to the economy. Besides, I don't think that the problem is with the credit side of the federal balance sheet, but on the debit side.

Let's prioritize spending on defense, raise the taxes on the rich so that they are paying the same as they were paying under Clinton, when the economy was growing at a healthy 3% rate.

[Tommy Duncan]

It's not about the money that would raise. It's the fact that everyone would share some piece of that burden, no matter how small. But I know, "the rich" will pay for everything.

[Tommy Duncan]

Who is "the rich" exactly?

Also, I hope you realize that Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on his definition of "the rich" would only increase tax collections by $25 billion per annum.

Where we start is by rolling back spending growth. Also it would help to have a politician step up to the plate and press for real en lement reform instead of passing the buck to future generations and creating new ones.

[Nbadan]

It's not about the money that would raise. It's the fact that everyone would share some piece of that burden, no matter how small. But I know, "the rich" will pay for everything.

Everyone does pay in one way or another. The poor pay with more heavily regulated, or even less en lements. Higher property taxes, sales taxes and the dreaded, ever-growing user fees. Taxes rarely go away. They are just shifted from the federal to the local and state level.

[Nbadan]

Also, I hope you realize that Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on his definition of "the rich" would only increase tax collections by $25 billion per annum.

Well, I'm not sure on those numbers, but if you think about it, all Kerry is really doing is repealing some of the Bush tax cut which many economists warned would do little to stimulate new job creation under current economic conditions (see Paul Krugman), and they were right.

[Tommy Duncan]

So the "poor" includes those who own their own homes?

At the federal level many certainly do not pay income taxes, including those who are more middle class than "poor." As for en lements, the benefits are based on what they paid in.

Sales tax is consumption based. If the "poor" make bad purchasing decisions is that someone else's fault? Also you are not accounting for state aid received by the "poor".

[Tommy Duncan]

Well, I'm not sure on those numbers, but if you think about it, all Kerry is really doing is repealing some of the Bush tax cut which many economists warned would do little to stimulate new job creation under current economic conditions (see Paul Krugman), and they were right.

Krugman said the tax cuts would throw this country into a recession. That's when I stopped reading his columns. He's more a partisan mouthpiece than an objective economist at this point.

As for the job growth, prior to the last monthly report it was going rather nicely. Of course there is significant volatility in those numbers as well as two sets of numbers. The employer based report fails to take into account the ranks of the self-employed, so it's bound to underestimate 'employment' figures.

[Nbadan]

So the "poor" includes those who own their own homes?

How about the elderly on fixed incomes? Should they be forced to sell their homes, the only asset for many, to feed themselves and buy necessary medicine?

[Tommy Duncan]

Should someone be forced to pay for someone else who did not adequately plan for retirement? Should they be forced to subsidize the refusal of that person's family to aid their elderly member? Why can't that person use that money to aid their own family and the charities that they see fit?

[Nbadan]

As for en lements, the benefits are based on what they paid in.

Not always. Look at the Chips program. Sometimes benefits shift based on the amount of funds made available by the state. Asset testing and tighter screening procedures are used to keep enrollment as tight as possible, even though the federal government sudsidies at least half the costs.

This is one reason why Texas leads the nation in the amount of uninsured people at 24%. The National average is 15%.

[Tommy Duncan]

CHIPS provides 6 month's worth of coverage. If the rules change, well, that's life.

"Uninsured" does not mean those people go without health care nor that they did not choose to be uninsured.

Also does that stat include illegals?

[Yonivore]

Abolish the tax code. Repeal the 16th amendment.

That's the answer.