The Tax Thread

crimsonaudio said:

I think most who oppose this do so for one (or both) of two reasons:
- the principle of voting to take vastly more money from someone else simply because they have more, and
- the fact that more revenue is not really what's needed, unless we get serious about government spending and reducing the debt. At this point it's obvious - give congress more money and they'll simply spend more, like giving a drunk more alcohol.

Click to expand...

At this point we are just electing the same people and hoping things change. There's a word for that I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio said:

I think most who oppose this do so for one (or both) of two reasons:
- the principle of voting to take vastly more money from someone else simply because they have more, and
- the fact that more revenue is not really what's needed, unless we get serious about government spending and reducing the debt. At this point it's obvious - give congress more money and they'll simply spend more, like giving a drunk more alcohol.

Click to expand...

progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.

I'm not sure about 70% but 39% is even more ridiculous especially considering the debt that we are accumulating.

crimsonaudio said:

Oh, I agree - we've been using a progressive system basically since the beginning of income tax here in the US. I've no problem with that, but I think some who oppose this feel as if that high of a percentage is unfair, regardless of the astronomical income level that's required to reach it or the fact that they will never be affected by it.

I'm more in the second camp - unless / until we make changes to how congress spends money, I'd rather starve the beast than find ways to feed it more money to waste.

Click to expand...

i tend to think (or like to think in my fairy tale world) that the spending and funding can be simultaneously dealt with. i am not a fan of starve the best because it is indiscriminate. there is a ton of wasteful spending in government, but there is also a ton of good spending in government.

92tide said:

progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.

Click to expand...

It sort of comes down to the fact that if we as a country desire to be a global power by spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. People who have wealth have to pay taxes to support it. We can't say spend a trillion to upgrade our nuclear
weapons and continue to borrow from our adversaries to pay for it.

What I believe has been done with the recent tax gift to the wealthy is to institute a poison pill against the passage of a progressive tax plan that would finance reasonable domestic programs and a reasonable defense budget.

As we continue to transfer wealth to the 1% while at the same time reducing their tax rate the tax burden will by definition be increasingly born by the working middle class.

How does any of this come to a good end when average voter can in no way imagine the wealth and income generated by those who possess the capital in our society?

UAH said:

It sort of comes down to the fact that if we as a country desire to be a global power by spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. People who have wealth have to pay taxes to support it. We can't say spend a trillion to upgrade our nuclear
weapons and continue to borrow from our adversaries to pay for it.

What I believe has been done with the recent tax gift to the wealthy is to institute a poison pill against the passage of a progressive tax plan that would finance reasonable domestic programs and a reasonable defense budget.

As we continue to transfer wealth to the 1% while at the same time reducing their tax rate the tax burden will by definition be increasingly born by the working middle class.

How does any of this come to a good end when average voter can in no way imagine the wealth and income generated by those who possess the capital in our society?

Click to expand...

92tide said:

i tend to think (or like to think in my fairy tale world) that the spending and funding can be simultaneously dealt with. i am not a fan of starve the best because it is indiscriminate. there is a ton of wasteful spending in government, but there is also a ton of good spending in government.

Click to expand...

And if it worked at all we wouldn't be at 20 trillion and increasing by another trillion every year.

I could get behind something similar to this - at least be willing to listen - if and only if the middle class get substantial tax relief. That would be more in line with the original income tax.

ETA: It would also help in moving the wealth back to the middle class.

crimsonaudio said:

Indeed, it's not a good solution at the extreme. I'm not suggesting government shutdown, I'm simply saying giving congress more money when they've (collectively) shown no interest in attacking our over-spending and borrowing is silly to me. Show me a budget that actively fights wasteful spending, eliminates deficit spending, and starts attacking the national debt and I'm all for paying more, even though I make far less than $10 million annually.

Click to expand...

A thoughtful, reasoned discussion of priorities and the feasibility of cutting seems impossible in today's political climate. Gone are the days where constitutional justification is needed to burden taxpayers with a permanent and growing obligation. All it seems to take now is a bunch of likes and retweets. The question is whether we can move on from Idiocracy to something better than Wall-E.

Bamabuzzard said:

I have nothing to add but just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good discussion. There's been some good ideas and thoughts expressed and I'm enjoying reading it.

Click to expand...

i think slab mentioned it the other day, most of us probably have a fairly significant overlap in basic values/concepts.

cbi1972 said:

A thoughtful, reasoned discussion of priorities and the feasibility of cutting seems impossible in today's political climate. Gone are the days where constitutional justification is needed to burden taxpayers with a permanent and growing obligation. All it seems to take now is a bunch of likes and retweets. The question is whether we can move on from Idiocracy to something better than Wall-E.

Click to expand...

i don't think that is the necessarily the case. i think more folks are getting to have a say in what constitutes thoughtful and reasoned and that can be messy for sure.

I have no problem with the 70% bracket on the mega rich. It also needs to come with some closing of loopholes, stiffer enforcement and protection against tax evaders.

But I do agree that we need a major overhaul across the board in a lot of places.

Not only how much the government spends but how the government spends need to be overhauled. For one- government/military operations should not be being punished for coming in under budget. Millions (who am I kidding, billions) is wasted every year in a last minute mad spending dash to use up the operational budget so that they don't have their budget slashed the following year. They may not have needed their full budget that year, but they might need it the next year and so they spend away to make sure someone doesn't cut them - and you end up buying new desks, chairs, etc every single year when it is not needed. Coming in under budget should be celebrated and incentivized.

We also need stricter enforcement on white collar crime. One thing trials like the Manafort trial shows is how often the rich get away with this stuff while a poor person gets the book thrown at them for ounces of drugs or other minor crimes. Millions upon millions of dollars could be brought back into the system by actually enforcing laws and keeping more people honest.

I know we're all taxed pretty badly currently and a lot of the government is wasteful and inefficient etc but my opinion is that if we're going to spend the ridiculous amounts we do on the military then we should also be able to afford social programs that much of the rest of the free world enjoys. I don't think the goal should just be "screw the government because it's wasteful" but rather "let's fix the government from being so wasteful."

Unfortunately most of the billionaires want the government right where it's at because they can control it and turn that wastefulness to line their pockets. Hence the ever widening wealth gap.

MattinBama said:

I have no problem with the 70% bracket on the mega rich. It also needs to come with some closing of loopholes, stiffer enforcement and protection against tax evaders.

But I do agree that we need a major overhaul across the board in a lot of places.

Not only how much the government spends but how the government spends need to be overhauled. For one- government/military operations should not be being punished for coming in under budget. Millions (who am I kidding, billions) is wasted every year in a last minute mad spending dash to use up the operational budget so that they don't have their budget slashed the following year. They may not have needed their full budget that year, but they might need it the next year and so they spend away to make sure someone doesn't cut them - and you end up buying new desks, chairs, etc every single year when it is not needed. Coming in under budget should be celebrated and incentivized.

We also need stricter enforcement on white collar crime. One thing trials like the Manafort trial shows is how often the rich get away with this stuff while a poor person gets the book thrown at them for ounces of drugs or other minor crimes. Millions upon millions of dollars could be brought back into the system by actually enforcing laws and keeping more people honest.

I know we're all taxed pretty badly currently and a lot of the government is wasteful and inefficient etc but my opinion is that if we're going to spend the ridiculous amounts we do on the military then we should also be able to afford social programs that much of the rest of the free world enjoys. I don't think the goal should just be "screw the government because it's wasteful" but rather "let's fix the government from being so wasteful."

Unfortunately most of the billionaires want the government right where it's at because they can control it and turn that wastefulness to line their pockets. Hence the ever widening wealth gap.

Click to expand...

and they spend billions on propaganda convincing people that this constitutes liberty and freedom.