Sequester
-
Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?
Lets start there.
It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).
They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.
As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.
They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.
As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.
Spend a larger portion of their "income" being the operative word. The "wealthy" rarely have an income. And thats why they arent paying taxes on it. It's not til you start heading into the "top 10%-4%" category (small business owners) where you see this "upper class" as they are incorrectly referred to as relying on income. Which they routinely give over half of it back every year in taxes.
Here's how the burden shakes out per the CBO:
And here's what Americans will be paying come April 15:
How will this shift the burden if they're already paying 10%? The answer is, it wont.
-
I'm not sure I follow you, but I think you're making this harder than it needs to be.
If you have someone who is a single parent with two kids who only makes $26,000 a year, they're not going to be paying any income tax. They'll be paying payroll taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, and a host of others. But she's likely exempt from income taxes because she doesn't make enough.
Now replace the income tax with a federal sales tax on everything she buys. Does her tax bill go up or down? Obviously, it goes up. And this is how the tax burden gets shifted to people with lower incomes. This is why it's regressive.
Now, some people, like Steve, thinks this gives her some skin in the game and makes her a better citizen somehow. I've never understood how that works. I don't see how it changes her behavior at all, except that it takes more money out of her pocketbook than she otherwise would have.
The idea that if you take someone who pays a bunch of different taxes, but doesn't make enough to pay the income tax, and then you make them pay the income tax, or a federal sales tax, that this somehow transforms their behavior ...I just don't get it. And if the idea is that now we'd have more people who were "involved in paying for their own benefits, et cetera, they might think harder about the taxing and spending" is just poorly expressed angst.
That single mother is likely fairly stuck in her station in life, with few opportunities for real advancement. That's the reality. If she's suddenly starts paying additional federal taxes, it doesn't suddenly make her more qualified, or educated, or virtuous. It just makes her and her children less financially secure.
-
But if there was a sales tax, she would be in control of her situation.
She just wouldn't buy that new car, or a 300.000 dollar motor home.
But, go after the rich with it, mo money to buy votes with. Got it.
I say, a flat tax is the way to go. It would be FAIR across the board. And, if you only make 20 grand a year, the
tax would be little. Why is that so hard for some to get?
-
Leg, you know how much comes out of my checks right now? 41.6%. That's state and federal. Now, that won't be the final rate I pay once I'm done. That'll end up being about 26%. But that's what gets extracted by the feds and California.
So don't mistake me for someone who enjoys paying taxes, and thinks the way we do it is perfect. I'd rather do it another way too. I just don't think a national sales tax is the way to go.
-
Well as I stated in the other thread - since we aren't looking at a reasonable solution for our illegal immigrant problem, this will allow them to contribute to the pie they currently eat from.
-
You know who needs to pay taxes? The military. They're operating well over capacity last I heard (at least the navy is) and they're income isn't taxed. I wasn't complaining when I was in, but really its not paying your fair share.
You know who needs to pay taxes? The military. They're operating well over capacity last I heard (at least the navy is) and they're income isn't taxed. I wasn't complaining when I was in, but really its not paying your fair share.
The military does pay income tax unless you are in a combat zone. Get your information straight. I ought to know, I spent 22 years in. Not only that, I had to pay Ohio income tax the whole time I was in even though I didn't live here. Thankfully, they have stopped that practice now.
-
Well as I stated in the other thread - since we aren't looking at a reasonable solution for our illegal immigrant problem, this will allow them to contribute to the pie they currently eat from.
Well as I stated in the other thread - since we aren't looking at a reasonable solution for our illegal immigrant problem, this will allow them to contribute to the pie they currently eat from.
That's not really much of an argument for switching to a national sales tax. After all, they're already contributing billions in FICA taxes and state taxes and gas tax and all the rest. And in the case of FICA, they're paying into Social Security and never going to get that back. It's something like $12 billion a year.
And we are looking for reasonable solutions to our illegal immigration problem.
But I'm with you, but only in a sense. I'm for national sales taxes, but not as a way to completely eliminate the income tax.
-
Washington fails to govern, as the sequester arrives
TO GOVERN IS to choose. By missing Friday’s deadline for averting $85 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs, Congress and President Obama have chosen not to govern. Instead, each side has concluded that its interest lies in letting the “sequester” proceed as scheduled — and then trying to win the political blame game.
By Editorial Board, Published: February 28
This abdication is bad public policy.
First, it’s never wise to cut spending without discriminating between the necessary and the wasteful, or without regard to the short-term effect on economic growth.
Second, despite the hype about fired teachers and paralyzed meat inspections, it remains true that, by packing the cuts into a relatively few programs over the next half-year, sequestration destabilizes federal agencies — and the lives of dedicated workers who face significant furloughs and loss of pay. This is especially dangerous with respect to the Defense Department, whose leaders have repeatedly warned that national security is at risk.
And third, for all the disruption, sequestration will do little to solve the country’s long-term budget problem, which can be addressed only through a combination of significant entitlement and revenue-raising tax reform.
The blame game’s ultimate loser is as unpredictable as the precise level and location of damage from the sequester. House Republicans irresponsibly refuse to entertain a sequester-avoidance deal that would include any new tax increases above the $600 billion (over 10 years) they grudgingly allowed to prevent the “fiscal cliff” on Jan. 1. Furthermore, the House won’t even vote on a replacement package of spending cuts, as it did in 2012. Meanwhile, the proposed solution of Senate Democrats — a tax hike on income above $1 million — was calculated more to cast Republicans as defenders of the rich than to become law.
A bill by Republican Sens. James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) would have given Mr. Obama a freer hand to decide where the budget ax should fall, thus mitigating the harm to national security and other public goods, at least in theory. It also failed; the White House had threatened to veto it anyway, saying that $85 billion is still too much cutting, which the GOP bill would skew in favor of unneeded defense items — and the GOP was just trying to “shift the focus away” from its refusal to compromise. No doubt the White House didn’t want to “own” potentially unpopular specific cuts any more than the House GOP does. (Two Democrats, including Virginia’s Mark R. Warner, voted to proceed on the bill.)
Washington has reached a strange place indeed when the opposition party offers the president more control over spending — and he refuses it. Apparently, in addition to its policy objections, the White House figured that a softened sequester couldn’t force Republicans to accept a long-term deal including higher revenue. It’s a gamble that the worse things might get now, the better they will get later. A strange place, and a sad one.
-
LOLOLOL !
170 million dollar .er... JOBS! GONE! -
LOLOLOL !
170 million dollar .er... JOBS! GONE!LOLOLOL !
170 million dollar .er... JOBS! GONE!
Look at the woman behind her in blue's face when she says that.
-
heckbunker may as well BE Maxine Waters.
There is only about 140 million jobs in the U.S. now.
There used to be 149 million, but Obamao got elected the first time.
It doesn't matter what the heckbunkers lie about ...as long as they
can sway opinions around them with the lies.
Since heckbunkers have no principles in life - the ends justify the means.
(btw, heckbunker and your little flea, woodpecker - Maxine said 170 million...
and that is 30 million more than 140 million. Just so you don't have to
have somebody help you figure it out.)
ah....I've done my good deed for the day.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login