<p>Marite,</p>
<p>First thing we can do is just say no to new programs! There’s a Congressman from Oklahoma who votes no to everything for just that reason.</p>
<p>No new programs, no new taxes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true… and of course not only do those with higher incomes pay more property tax because they live in more expensive houses, but the tax rates in those neighborhoods are generally much higher too. </p>
<p>
The ones that are a waste of money. Again, it’s not about mindlessly scooping up more money it’s about making better use of the money we already have.</p>
<p>You’ve got situations where those earning still quite modest sums are still contributing 2, 5 even 10x as much to the ‘system’ than the average joe. When do we say enough is enough? People forget that one reasonably well off earner is literally working to prop up perhaps 10 other people in ‘the system.’</p>
<p>^That’s right! Stop the wasteful government spending!</p>
<p>Agreed! Bring the troops home tomorrow!</p>
<p>“Ah, we’re not discussing tax cuts but tax increases, unless like mini, you don’t think the deficit and being in hock to Chinese and Saudis matter. So who’s going to have to pay more?”</p>
<p>We are in hock to the Chinese and Saudis because Bush gave away the funds he borrowed to the super-rich. It seems only fair to me that they should repay them. For the rest of us, we’ve got better things to do with out dollars, and let it “trickle up”.</p>
<p>The rich get richer, the poor get F/A. The middle get nothing !</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For those proposing higher taxes here’s a sobering thought. We’re currently spending about $100 billion per year in Iraq (that’s about $3,000 - $4,000 PER SECOND). </p>
<p>That works out to about $700 per year for every US taxpayer… now I think most people would like having their taxes lowered by $700 per year or, at the very least, have that $700 spent on something a bit more productive.</p>
<p>Think about it, since the war started we could have not gone to war in Iraq, kept all other spending policies the same, and there could be a cheque for a few thousand bucks sitting in your mail slot right now…</p>
<p>I’m glad that you’re including the cost of war in the picture because a lot of people who oppose tax increases or the redistribution of the tax burden also support the war.</p>
<p>
Have you ever filed tax?<br>
If your taxable income is between
0 and 8k, it’s 10%
8k - 32k, it’s 15%
32k - 79k, it’s 20%
79-165k, 28%
165-358, 33%
358-up, 35%
The more you make, the more you pay. Now, if you get creative, you might save a few % on your effective rate. But it isn’t exactly 10% across the board. Plus, you can’t get too creative because AMT do kick in after a certain point. Anyway, you suggest people with 1mil/year salary pay 700k because they still end up with 300k? Seriously?</p>
<p>marite,</p>
<p>“Redistribution” - that’s what you really want! “Redistribution” of wealth/hard earned/worked for money. The government has taken enough of our hard earned money in the form of taxes and has wasted it. You propose to take more of what people earn so the government can redistribute it. That sounds a lot like Marxism.</p>
<p>Amom2 and Middmsmith:</p>
<p>I have lived long enough to file taxes-possibly longer than you. the 10% was an easy example. I would trust people would understand that much.</p>
<p>My main concern, as I’ve posted over and over again, is not fairness. It’s how to raise taxes in order to have the best chance to reduce the deficit. Logically, you can raise more tax revenue from millionnaires than from people living at the poverty level. That’s not Marxism, that’s logic.</p>
<p>I would have to be an idiot not to know that the tax rate is different for different tax brackets. But I gave an example of how even paying more in tax will have less impact on a family’s well-being if that family is high earning. Is that a matter of dispute? And no, I’m not suggesting that someone earning $1m should pay $700k because that person would still have $300k. I’m asking if taxes were to be raised, whose taxes should be? I have not even asked by how much. </p>
<p>Now some are arguing that taxes don’t need to be raised, but spending should be cut. I answered fine. Which spending? Wasteful spending is not an answer. Spending that does not work is not an answer. </p>
<p>rocketman seems to suggest he would be amenable to ending the war in Iraq. Are you? What other program would you want to cut? Most of the deficit comes from entitlement programs. So which one?</p>
<p>Amom2: I know far more about Marxism than you will know. You can be thankful for that.</p>
<p>Taxable income 0 to ~20 K is not taxed - ever hear of earned income credits?? Sheesh.</p>
<p>Marite, the best way to increase tax revenue is to increase business investment in this country. Increasing taxes on the so-called wealthy will decrease business investment in this country. It will grow entitlements, however, as well as the deficit. It will diminish the ranks of the wealthy who will stop working, leave the country, or grow poor. And for many, that will be viewed as a really good thing. Kluge will be thrilled! Problem is that once we achieve this “fair” world, few will want to live in it. Why do you think immigrants want to come here? For our entitlements? Nah. They want to get rich!</p>
<p>The economy is kind of like college admissions. Some kids have a lot of talent and some luck and a great work ethic and do really, really well. There will always be those who can’t stand that scenario. They want to get rid of the SAT. Get rid of grades. Make it “fair.” The more they push for these things, the more they destroy the value of what the kids are competing for.</p>
<p>Pulling out of Iraq is obviously insufficient. Savings can come from cutting the military by half. Why do we need a large standing military? Most of the NAvy can go. We no longer need to patrol the sea. We have enough of a nuclear arsenal to deter invasion. So the remaining military should be used for deployment in emergency only. Incidentally why do we have a fleet in the Pacific or troops in Okinawa mostly to defend Japan or south Korea?</p>
<p>mammall;</p>
<p>I don’t think of the economy as college admissions. Because college admissions seek to exclude anywhere from >90% to 30%. The economy has to include everyone, including the sick, the homeless and even the illegal immigrants. Whether we like it or not, non-taxpayers cost money whether it’s in police, garbage collection or emergency room attendance, so they have to be factored into calculations, unlike unsuccessful applicants at colleges. </p>
<p>So, instead of the meal out analogy which implies that there is a choice (going out for a meal) and that the diners are unrelated to one another, I prefer to think of the economy as a meal for an extended family with members of different ages (and requirements) and resources. If the price of groceries go up, what to do? </p>
<p>Padad: I’m thinking that the military budget could take a good look. There’s plenty of waste there. I read, however, that the greatest pressure comes from entitlement programs.</p>
<p>If your taxable income is between
0 and 8k, it’s 10%
8k - 32k, it’s 15%
32k - 79k, it’s 20%
79-165k, 28%
165-358, 33%
358-up, 35%</p>
<p>You probably already know this, but just thought I’d point out of course that we have a scalable tax system. You might be in the ‘28% tax bracket’ but you might only end up paying about 19% of your income in federal tax. The last few dollars you earn are taxed at the highest rate, but most of your other earnings are taxed at lower rates. For everyone, the first 8k of AGI you earn each year is only taxed at 10%. However, of course, when you tack on state and local taxes plus social security and medicare the amount you lose in each paycheck to taxes in general is roughly where your tax bracket is… but that’s not the same as what you’re paying in federal income tax. </p>
<p>Also, lets not forget that there’s a big difference between someone’s income in terms of their ‘salary’ and their income in terms of their income taxes. eg the difference between what shows up as your gross pay on your paycheck and your actual AGI. Everyone gets to slash off almost $9k from their gross income between the standard deduction and personal exemption. That alone moves a lot of lower income workers down a whole tax bracket. If you max out your 401k contributions then that’s an additional $15k that you get to remove from your ‘income.’</p>
<p>Wow, alot of posts happen overnight, I leave work and don’t look at a computer for a blessed 13 hours!!!:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already have 2 nephews there, does that count?</p>
<p>And, I don’t mind paying my local taxes where I can see where the money is going, and I wouldn’t mind paying for my hiways and roads, I just don’t want to be paying for a bridge to some island in Alaska that only has a few people living there - can’t they make due with a ferry?;)</p>
<p>And, as for that 33,000 each of my family owes - they can try to get it, but have you heard of getting blood from a turnip?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a book plot, you can call it Atlas Shrugged!!</p>
<p>rocketman:</p>
<p>Indeed. I was not thinking only of income taxes but all kinds of taxes (estate tax, capital gain tax, corporate tax, and so on as well as exemptions and subsidies. </p>
<p>My starting point is that economists seem to be nearly unanimous that some tax increase is necessary and even John McCain is not ruling it out.
If that is the accepted premise (and some posters do not accept it), how should the taxes be raised: it can be consumption, it can be by letting some tax cuts lapse, it can be by eliminating some exemptions (the mortgage interest credit has been accused of distorting economic behavior, for example, but too popular to eliminate).</p>
<p>If we prefer to cut spending, which spending should be cut?</p>
<p>My own take is that both McCain and Obama have been far too timid in addressing the economy. I am merely curious as to how posters from different points of the political spectrum would go about doing so. We don’t have to make the tough decisions; we can be bolder than either candidate :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m glad you only get to post your ideas and not act on them. You can’t be a pacifist nation in an aggressive world. Could there be cuts in the military, sure? You are talking about turning the most powerful military ever assembled into a guy with a stick (by comparison). I can’t even believe you really think that the Navy or the presence on the seas is meaningless. How do you propose we move troops around when an “emergency” comes up? Delta or United Airlines?</p>
<p>There are many other places where cuts should come as well. Go out and take a look at the budget. The vast sums of money that go to things will make you scratch your head.</p>
<p>
Newsflash, we already use commercial airliners to move troops around. Not into hostile combat zones, but between a lot of bases it’s very common for contracts to be drawn up to fly commercial airliners into bases.</p>
<p>pmrlcomm:</p>
<p>No waste in the military? Which things will make you scratch your head?</p>
<p>So far, no one has made a concrete suggestion except padad. As a matter of fact, I think that Obama’s idea of redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will not reduce costs as he implies.</p>