Bush Tax cuts for the rich

[jacko]

What spending would you curtail? The bottom 50% pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes such as sales taxes on services, utilities, mobile plans, tobacco, alcohol etc.

If your in the top 5%, why did you file BK?

Totally disagree. The best way to reduce deficits... is to curtail spending. If you raise taxes, you decrease the number of jobs created or maintained, and your tax base decreases.

I'm in the top 5% of tax payers, and yes, we do pay more than 60% of the entire tax revenues collected. The bottom 50% actually get money they didn't pay in. It's simply a redistribution of wealth, and if you keep doing this, the truly wealthy will leave and take their money with them.

[caz67212]

Why does everyone seem to think the expiration for the tax cuts for the rich is a bad thing?

Because this statement

Remember, the increase in tax is ONLY on what is made above $250,000.

is absolutely false. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will impact every bracket, not just the top two.

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/

[justbroke]

If your in the top 5%, why did you file BK?

Because I have owned two businesses before that... both failed. I actually employed people and at one time I had 5 retail stores. I then went into real estate and the rest is history. Just as the rich file bankruptcy, so does the middle class and even the poor.

What spending would you curtail?

Unfunded programs. There is so much waste, fraud, and abuse within the entitlement programs it is NOT funny. The Social Security Administration has increased funding for detecting and recovering "overpayments" of SSA program funds by over $247,000,000.00 this year. The amount spent on the auditing components is over $750,000,000.00 a year. Yes, they do pay out almost $60,000,000,000.00 a month in entitlements, but where does it stop? It's obviously broken, and people are taking advantage of hand outs. The "stimulus" package(s) are nothing more than hand outs and oversight has been severely lacking, even under the current administration.

Sorry, but I don't want my tax dollars going to purchase exotic ants (over $1,000,000.00) or for studying the affects of cocaine on monkeys. I can see the affects of cocaine on primates by just going to my local "crack" corner.

The bottom 50% pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes such as sales taxes on services, utilities, mobile plans, tobacco, alcohol etc

Maybe stop smoking and drinking? (I don't smoke or drink.) But in all seriousness, I'm for a consumption tax. I'm 100% for a consumption tax. But you will find that an 18-20% VAT (value added tax) would probably drive the same 50% crazy. Besides, I'm talking about Federal Income taxes and not Federal, State and Local "use" taxes.

[backtoschool]

Because I have owned two businesses before that... both failed. I actually employed people and at one time I had 5 retail stores. I then went into real estate and the rest is history. Just as the rich file bankruptcy, so does the middle class and even the poor.

Unfunded programs. There is so much waste, fraud, and abuse within the entitlement programs it is NOT funny. The Social Security Administration has increased funding for detecting and recovering "overpayments" of SSA program funds by over $247,000,000.00 this year. The amount spent on the auditing components is over $750,000,000.00 a year. Yes, they do pay out almost $60,000,000,000.00 a month in entitlements, but where does it stop? It's obviously broken, and people are taking advantage of hand outs. The "stimulus" package(s) are nothing more than hand outs and oversight has been severely lacking, even under the current administration.

Sorry, but I don't want my tax dollars going to purchase exotic ants (over $1,000,000.00) or for studying the affects of cocaine on monkeys. I can see the affects of cocaine on primates by just going to my local "crack" corner.

Maybe stop smoking and drinking? (I don't smoke or drink.) But in all seriousness, I'm for a consumption tax. I'm 100% for a consumption tax. But you will find that an 18-20% VAT (value added tax) would probably drive the same 50% crazy. Besides, I'm talking about Federal Income taxes and not Federal, State and Local "use" taxes.

I once again find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you justbroke.

With private companies cutting 401k contributions and pension contributions, and with salaries decreasing, it would be wrong to cut social security. The generation that is currently collecting social security, and the baby boomers that are about to collect social security, have not planned for retirement (as a generational whole, there will always be individual exceptions of course). If we are to have any social safety net at all as a country we need to provide for those that can no longer work full time, and in my opinion, we have to honor our commitments and promises to our citizens that they will be provided for in retirement.

I am in favor of consumption taxes, I just do not believe they will cover all of our spending.

And NIH and NIA funded research cures diseases, solves mysteries about us, our makeup, our universe, and much more. Research on flies and monkeys eventually tells us about our own biological, genetic, and physical systems.

I can't imagine any sector that had more fraud and abuse than wall street. Wherever there is money there is fraud and abuse. Cutting spending to try to stop fraud and abuse will not stop any such thing in my opinion. But it may make some innocent people suffer because they do not have enough retirement money, or because they suffer from a disease that could have been cured through research.

[justbroke]

I didn't say cut Social Security! I just was pointing out the waste, fraud, and abuse in a large social program. The problem will always be there, and the $700,000,000.00 a year spent to reduce the overpayment problem, is very telling! I just wish we could get rid of waste and catch the fraudsters, that's all.

I don't think SSA is underfunded, since that is a Federal program. I'm talking about programs that there is no corresponding revenue being collected. Don't ask me which programs. SSA is actually, this year, going to under-collect, so it is now not funded by tax revenues. Sad, but it is the boomers, as you note.

My real point is that when lots of "free" money is on the table, the greedy come out. If you just decide to tax the rich and spend even more money on new programs, you're going to be met with resistance. People will always want to see their tax money being used efficiently. When I see waste... I am not too happy... especially when you're asking me to pay more. I don't have the luxury to waste money... especially since I hopefully learned my lesson after filing bankruptcy!

I'm all for research, as I've done it in my past. But, come on... cocaine for monkeys?

[helpmeout]

I'm 100% for a consumption tax. But you will find that an 18-20% VAT (value added tax) would probably drive the same 50% crazy. Besides, I'm talking about Federal Income taxes and not Federal, State and Local "use" taxes.

I am against consumption taxes. It is not fair for lower wage people to have to pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes. It would be more than the higher wage earners would be paying as a percentage. And that is not fair nor is it right.

[backtoschool]

I didn't say cut Social Security! I just was pointing out the waste, fraud, and abuse in a large social program. The problem will always be there, and the $700,000,000.00 a year spent to reduce the overpayment problem, is very telling! I just wish we could get rid of waste and catch the fraudsters, that's all.

I don't think SSA is underfunded, since that is a Federal program. I'm talking about programs that there is no corresponding revenue being collected. Don't ask me which programs. SSA is actually, this year, going to under-collect, so it is now not funded by tax revenues. Sad, but it is the boomers, as you note.

My real point is that when lots of "free" money is on the table, the greedy come out. If you just decide to tax the rich and spend even more money on new programs, you're going to be met with resistance. People will always want to see their tax money being used efficiently. When I see waste... I am not too happy... especially when you're asking me to pay more. I don't have the luxury to waste money... especially since I hopefully learned my lesson after filing bankruptcy!

I'm all for research, as I've done it in my past. But, come on... cocaine for monkeys?

I am against waste too justbroke, and I think we both agree that where there is large sums of money, there is greed, fraud and abuse.

I am also for tax credits for those that truly create jobs, invest in infrastructure and spend money in this country helping to rebuild our economy. I am not for unfunded tax cuts for the upper and upper middle class however.

I don't think government money is ever spent efficiently since there is such a huge bureaucratic middle layer of unneeded federal clerks and employees that justify their existence by creating extra layers of cost in all federal programs.

And I think there is a lot of stupidity in research grants as well, but I just want to make sure that those who decide which research programs are important and which are not are not the same bloated bureaucrats I just mentioned in the above paragraph.

[justbroke]

I am against consumption taxes. It is not fair for lower wage people to have to pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes. It would be more than the higher wage earners would be paying as a percentage. And that is not fair nor is it right.

Don't move to Europe or many other countries then. VAT has been around for a long time. How about a "sin" tax? If you smoke and drink and pay the "sin" tax, should you complain? I don't smoke or drink. I don't pay that tax.

I'm not sure there is a "fair tax system" that can be had anyhow. While you complained earlier that the lower 50% pay more in taxes on purchased goods -- in contrast to income taxes -- they also enjoy "refundable" tax credits that earn many of them more than $8,000 of refunds on money they did not earn. That more than covers the taxes paid throughout the year, and is probably why the offset is there.

I'm saying that the system will never be fair, and as Thomas Jefferson opined in not too many words, you will eventually have revolt. Of course, those fine (rich) gentlemen were smugglers and tax evaders themselves and didn't want to pay Colonial taxes back in those days.

I don't have the answer, but history shows in this country that taxes are a touchy subject.

I am against waste too justbroke, and I think we both agree that where there is large sums of money, there is greed, fraud and abuse.

I don't remember who told me this, but I always ask this question. Would you like a Government that can tell you where every single penny is spent on various programs, military, benefits, etc... but has little to show for it? Or, would you rather have a Government who spends half the amount of money (everything is beautiful... roads are paved... streets lights working... buildings good... prices and inflation in check) but this Government can't tell you to the penny where the money was spent?

[OhioFiler]

I'm not seeing how cutting spending is going to grow the economy and get us out of this recession/depression.

Can someone please explain?

Red herring.

Cutting spending will significantly reduce the increasing debt load we are forcing on our children. It is not an issue for economic growth.

No economic growth is created by government spending. Economic growth is dependent on the private sector not government. If the holders of capital were comfortable with the policies of the socialist democrat in chief we'd see them spending more. We really need to get some adults in charge in Washington and soon!

[OhioFiler]

There are parts of this country that are straddling the line between recession and depression. Homes are worth half of what they were worth in 2007 in the midwest state that I live in, and I am not talking about a blighted urban city, I am talking about the middle class and upper-middle class neighborhoods. Salaries in my area are down 30% from boom times. I often have to travel to California for work, and it is not much better there. There are many other metro areas with similar numbers.

These urban and metro areas you speak of are all controlled by democrats. I say it's time we put some adults in charge in the mold of Chris Christie, current governor of New Jersey.

[backtoschool]

Red herring.

Cutting spending will significantly reduce the increasing debt load we are forcing on our children. It is not an issue for economic growth.

No economic growth is created by government spending. Economic growth is dependent on the private sector not government. If the holders of capital were comfortable with the policies of the socialist democrat in chief we'd see them spending more. We really need to get some adults in charge in Washington and soon!

Welcome back to the board OhioFiler.

Cutting spending will not reduce our current debt load, and will cause less consumer spending, which in turn will add to deflation, etc, and we will be in an economic downward spiral.

Who are these "holders of capital"? The banks? They are hoarding cash because they can borrow it at 0% and sell it back to the govt at a profit, that is an easy way for them to make a profit without having to actually fund a loan that will invest in capital equipment, or jobs, etc. The monetary policy that allows this has to stop.

[backtoschool]

These urban and metro areas you speak of are all controlled by democrats. I say it's time we put some adults in charge in the mold of Chris Christie, current governor of New Jersey.

Yawn.

Since when is the governor of California a democrat?

And many midwest and western areas of the country that I am talking about are run by Republicans.

Also, since when have any politicians of either party been correctly classified as "adults"?

[OhioFiler]

I'm not sure there is a "fair tax system" that can be had anyhow. While you complained earlier that the lower 50% pay more in taxes on purchased goods -- in contrast to income taxes -- they also enjoy "refundable" tax credits that earn many of them more than $8,000 of refunds on money they did not earn. That more than covers the taxes paid throughout the year, and is probably why the offset is there.

A fair tax system could be created based on the Constitutional mandates and intent of our founders. Income tax would not be an issue if the government was sized as the founders intended. Our forefathers had no intention for any of the monstrosities that exist today in the name of social well being. The federal government was intended to have a limited role in our lives yet has morphed into an incredible machine of over-taxation and insane spending.

It is time for The People to take back our country. It's happening. Barbara Boxer is looking to lose her seat in California, an unthinkable event just a year ago. Many other entrenched political elites are about to be displaced as well. Hooray!

[OhioFiler]

Yawn.

Since when is the governor of California a democrat?

And many midwest and western areas of the country that I am talking about are run by Republicans.

Also, since when have any politicians of either party been correctly classified as "adults"?

RINO*=democrat. Schwarzenegger is a RINO.

Are you saying Chis Christie is no different than Arnold Schwarzenegger?


*RINO=Republican In Name Only.

[OhioFiler]

Yawn.

Some how I doubt you honestly find my post yawn-worthy!