<p>^ Yes, our corporations are really suffering. That’s why they need a zero percent tax rate … you know, so that when they lay off workers they get to keep ALL the cost savings. THAT’S the kind on incentive program this country needs!</p>
<p>Scrape it, dump it, and start over.
The politicians would the ones to get a real shock- no more funny money to play with!
The Flood fund, the ear-marks, the slush funds… let’s get rid of them.
And then the new tax system can be designed to do a few simple obvious things.</p>
<p>Okay, dstark, just to clarify your position, take that guy at the bottom of the 1% category who is paying 380K. He might be getting 20K in health benefits if he has a family. Don’t think you can count retirement contributions because he will be paying on that when he takes it out, will he not? Though I suppose you don’t consider double taxation, but just to make it easier, consider that guy (or family) makes 400K.</p>
<p>So you think 40-50% overall is fair, for him to pay 160-200K, because spending compared to GDP is 40%. Seeing as the spending on entitlements and all the other spending is projected to massively increase, what about when spending to GDP ratio is 100%? What then? Do you think that man/woman/family is going to continue to work and live on their savings to pay for government spending?</p>
<p>I agree the tax code is a mess.</p>
<p>“Scrape it, dump it, and start over.
The politicians would the ones to get a real shock- no more funny money to play with!
The Flood fund, the ear-marks, the slush funds… let’s get rid of them.
And then the new tax system can be designed to do a few simple obvious things.”</p>
<p>If only we could! It seems so logical.</p>
<p>“So you think 40-50% overall is fair, for him to pay 160-200K, because spending compared to GDP is 40%”</p>
<p>I don’t know if fair is the perfect word…but yes…I do think it is fair.</p>
<p>" Seeing as the spending on entitlements and all the other spending is projected to
massively increase, what about when spending to GDP ratio is 100%? What then? Do you think that man/woman/family is going to continue to work and live on their savings to pay for government spending?"</p>
<p>We are not going to get as high as 100%,</p>
<p>I think I already said what I am comfortable with… 50%.
If society decides that social goods are more important than individual
goods…than an argument could be made that taxes should rise higher than 50% of GDP. </p>
<p>You do realize that the word entitlement is a political word? The use of that word is bs.
Entitlement implies that people are Getting something for nothing. People are paying for social security. People are paying for Medicare.</p>
<p>If people understood the time value of money…these people would understand that the people who complain about “entitlements” are being disingenuous…At least regarding SS. </p>
<p>Medicare is a problem because our health care system in this country is a mess. The private health care system is a big mess too.</p>
<p>lol, the millionaires and billionaires “not paying our fair share” inevitably end up meaning my DH and me, earning far less than that and with little accumulated wealth thanks to taxes and colleges who charge us about five times what they charge the “deserving” kids.</p>
<p>I am puzzled by the relentless efforts to fan the flames of resentment of the “1 percent” by a small nucleus of CCers on the Cafe. What is the motivation? It’s so constant and singleminded . . . just doesn’t feel like a parent shooting the breeze but more like people with a true agenda.</p>
<p>Keep beating your drum Dstark. Maybe the proletariat will finally hear your message and rise up and make those evil 1 percenters give all their money to those who know how it should be used – you?</p>
<p>In NJ 403b contributns are taxed on the way in…we’ve since moved to another state, and i am certain i’ll be taxed on withdrawals also…</p>
<p>In my eyes, the question isn’t whether or not a person with income x is taxed too high or low. It’s how effectively the government spends the money that it gets its hands on, which I think is quite badly, so I subscribe to the “starve the beast” school of thought. </p>
<p>Hypothetically, let’s say the martians hand the feds a trillion dollar/year royalty fee. Do you seriously think it’ll solve anything long term? The most predictable outcome, based on history, is that you’ll have new progams put in place that will cost a trillion and a half to pay off the political backers, and you’ll still have the debts, the uninsured, the unemployed, the illiterates, and the homeless, so fresh claims can be made to raise even more money.</p>
<p>Our people and government are not very different from those in southern europe, and as long as we have the ability to spend irresponsibly, we will do so vigorously, and this will continue till we’re forced not to.</p>
<p>Sewhappy…if you don’t get it…you don’t get it.</p>
<p>I get it. ;)</p>
<p>I like this board because there are many intelligent people on here with different experiences and the board gets me thinking.</p>
<p>This discussion about taxes…
With all the tax breaks I have received over the decades…when everything is added up…I have paid more taxes as a percentage of income than the percentage of government to GDP. So I feel good about that. I would hate to think I haven’t pulled my weight. ;)</p>
<p>However…the last decade…the effective tax rates are so low…I am coming up short.</p>
<p>Sorry…I am no longer pulling my weight. ;)</p>
<p>Starving the beast? Starving the Beast means let’s not pay the bills…and then spending will drop. That policy has been in action for 30 years.</p>
<p>Has spending decreased?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP[/url]”>http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP</a></p>
<p>Its unfortunate that some of the 1%ers or those who think they are exaggerate the positions of those who think that taxes need to go up on higher income workers.</p>
<p>dstark, you are clearly intent on viewing our economy and tax structure through a lens that perceives inequity by the rich toward the poor no matter what. I read your posts. I try to follow your arguments. They are polemical and steeped in a pov that seems to be so entrenched within you that real debate is sort of impossible.</p>
<p>There are certainly many who see the world as you do. Most of my extended family does. What is interesting to me is your relentless crusade on CC to argue your pov. It is quite distinctive and puzzles me. I’m sorry, it feels more like someone logging time at their job than a parent just wasting time on a discussion board.</p>
<p>I think Dad<em>of</em>3 gets it perfectly. And hopefully spending to GDP will never get to 100%, yet it has increased consistently, almost every year. Don’t you think it is going to keep rising, with health care costs going up, with more people collecting SS and Medicare for longer, higher debt to pay interest on? What happens when interest rates go up?</p>
<p>So I am interested in the tax rate plan of dstark now, because it is more illuminating when one gets into specifics, instead of talking in circles. Say the tax we are talking about is the total amount for SS, medicare, federal and state (forget sales and property for now, that is too variable). What is the total yearly tax in dstarks plan on:</p>
<p>50K
100K
200K
300K
500K
1,000,000
or other specific categories that you’d change the number on?
Just curious.</p>
<p>Nah, sewhappy, dstark is just determined to bring others to his point of view. As many of us all are. It never works, but we just can’t resist continuing to try!</p>
<p>Dad-of-3,
Yes, I do agree with this. Spending irresponsibly, spending unconsciously, spending erroneously (with intentions that are truly not being accomplished): seem to be a hallmark of politicians, everywhere.</p>
<p>I am NOT anti-welfare and social support. And I have SOME hopes that a simple tax code with a well-considered tweak once in a while might get an occasional stimulus going.
But not with the tax code and lobbying mechanisms we have in place.</p>
<p>We have an octopus with so many arms and hands and fingers in so many pots that we have no idea what anyone is doing, let alone what the effects are.</p>
<p>When in doubt (here due to huge complexity and uncertainty), a human will just become selfish and self-serving.
Capitalism is supposed to assume that behavior. It is very cyclical and destructive, a la Schumpeter, when not “managed”.
At the moment the “managed” aspect of our economy has stopped being effective, is quite self-serving (an anathema), and has overwhelmed the rest of the economy, and yet it is scary to amputate because so many NEED it to survive. So we are moving towards socialism.
Without internal growth, we will keep sliding in this direction.</p>
<p>How do we get back to a primarily capitalistic economy? Is this too painful? I am all for “some” well-considered “management” by the government! The question there is- can the “people” really judge what is effective and not too much? and can the politicians understand , and exercise self-control? Or we all now operating from our most primitive need to serve ourselves? </p>
<p>I endeavour carefully to place myself in the moderate stance, where I can hope to see as many points of view as possible, but these days, where IS that?? There is a black hole, no THERE there…</p>
<p>[cross-posted with busdriver, whom I agree with, but who will undoubtedly say I am just talking in circles. Anyone who can stop thinking of just themselves is accomplishing something IMHO…]</p>
<p>DocT, It is unfortunate that there are those trying to convince the masses that the solution to our economic woes is to tax the rich more. Usually, these are people so rich that it really is sort of moot what they pay in taxes in terms of personal impact or not-rich people with enormous certitude that they know better what to do with other people’s money than the people who earned it. They usually see themselves as crusaders and altruistic. In fact, they are often charlatans.</p>
<p>Please point these people out. I don’t think that Dstark or even Obama believe that or have said that. Increasing taxes on the rich which most in our country support is only part of the solution - spending also needs to be cut.</p>
<p>"[cross-posted with busdriver, whom I agree with, but who will undoubtedly say I am just talking in circles. Anyone who can stop thinking of just themselves is accomplishing something IMHO…]"</p>
<p>Funny, I completely agree with your post. I don’t think complexity of thought and having a moderate and well considered view as talking in circles. I was specifically referring to many posts that dstark has made about tax rates that do not specify exact numbers that one can easily quantify.</p>
<p>Yes, sewhappy, I agree with your point that it is too simplistic.
And self-serving to the “heroes” promoting such action.</p>
<p>Historically, the correction in an unbalanced economy is started by the foment of such charlatans, however.
The correction can come about in numerous ways:
revolution, prosperity, plague, population shrinkage, civil war, being conquered, bail-outs, raising taxes even more/printing money, austerity programs, planned society, calling an emergency vote or election, revamped tax code, revamped government structure, change in people in government, coup, military take-over, resignation of leaders, industrial consolidation, wholesale change in lifestyle due to a huge technological improvement… </p>
<p>what am I missing?</p>
<p>"… and colleges who charge us about five times what they charge the “deserving” kids."</p>
<p>Funny! I love sarcasm. Still, I have a question … will colleges charge less if we eliminate taxes on the 1-percenters? No, didn’t think so. Will Bank of America be allowed to fail the next time its management “gets stupid?” No, probably not. Will there still be “bridges to nowhere” funded? More instances of Ponzi schemers being given clean bills of health by the SEC?</p>
<p>Well OK, that’s more than one question. Here’s the real question: How long will it take before Americans figure out that “the blame game” is simply another Wedge Issue to keep Americans from working together to solve their common problems?</p>
<p>That is what I was trying to say, NewHope. We do have to work together, ALL Make sacrifices, ALL take risks.
Not such a great political platform, however.</p>
<p>Some may offer to make bigger sacrifices, others may offer their expertise.</p>
<p>The blame game is natural and good up to a point, part of the initial process, the attempt to answer how did we get here in the first place? then, what needs to be corrected? But we need to listen to each other and be open to what we hear. </p>
<p>The level of understanding about how such a complex economy and political system works, including the infernally complex tax-code, is a big deterrent to a getting together process being effective, however.
When things get too complicated or too scary, it is so easy to take the simple route to avoiding one’s own pain…
and agreeing with what we want to hear…</p>