Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 97 of 97

Thread: Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1%

  1. #81
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4268005]it's not stealing it's payment for services rendered
    [B]
    whether we agree with the services or not doesn't matter[/B]

    I for example believe the Iraq war was a bad decision, we never should have gone. But I also believe we have to pay for it, regardless of how misguided the spending was... it's a bill that needs to be paid. taxes pay those bills.

    .[/QUOTE]

    The sentence in bold tells of someone who believes the people should not question government. So...if 51 percent never pay tax, they will be in the majority and the 49 percent not to question the almight redistribution machine.

  2. #82
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4268163]Except Ryan, like Pelosi walked away from Simpson Bowles the only real deal on the table that was in any way none partisan.[/QUOTE]

    I've seen Simpson Bowles and am not in love with the plan. How do you take away the mortgage interest deduction when millions of people are struggling to pay their mortgage as it is? That plan represented a massive tax hike for me. Since I am the middle class that type of plan by default would harm too many people and the economy as a whole.

  3. #83
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4268178]How do you take away the mortgage interest deduction when millions of people are struggling to pay their mortgage as it is?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe they wouldn't be struggling if they lived within their means.

  4. #84
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4268178]I've seen Simpson Bowles and am not in love with the plan. How do you take away the mortgage interest deduction when millions of people are struggling to pay their mortgage as it is? That plan represented a massive tax hike for me. Since I am the middle class that type of plan by default would harm too many people and the economy as a whole.[/QUOTE]

    If the rates come down which they do under Simpson Bowles the deduction has much less value.

    No reason home owners should get a deduction for taking on debt. They will have to take on less debt and houses will be slightly less valuable over the long run.

    We shouldn't base our tax code on temporary situations. If people believe money is being held back becuase of uncertainty a simplified code that doesn't artificially jack up assets will create a more efficient market over time.

  5. #85
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4268329]If the rates come down which they do under Simpson Bowles the deduction has much less value.

    No reason home owners should get a deduction for taking on debt. They will have to take on less debt and houses will be slightly less valuable over the long run.

    We shouldn't base our tax code on temporary situations. If people believe money is being held back becuase of uncertainty a simplified code that doesn't artificially jack up assets will create a more efficient market over time.[/QUOTE]

    True..the value of the mortgage deduction has fallen as rates have fallen.

  6. #86
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4268178]I've seen Simpson Bowles and am not in love with the plan. How do you take away the mortgage interest deduction when millions of people are struggling to pay their mortgage as it is? That plan represented a massive tax hike for me. Since I am the middle class that type of plan by default would harm too many people and the economy as a whole.[/QUOTE]...and decreased the value of your home to boot...

  7. #87
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4267320]Bottom line is: what kind of nation do you want? If you put all your eggs in the basket of "bootstrap do-it-yourself" capitalism, you will also have to live with a very large, angry, fighting-for-scraps populace that doesn't appreciate the very rich. Same was true in the ancient Roman republic, same is true today. Reality is that people are not all equally smart, capable, gifted, or driven, much less starting from the same financial status at birth. Inequalities of all sorts will breed further inequality unless balanced by a social contract that in some way gives back to the masses. Might not seem fair to boy genius who makes it big, but that's the hard truth of avoiding polarization and potentially revolution. You can't build a nation without compromise. How and where you compromise is the whole debate.[/QUOTE]

    Here's what I don't get -- we're SO FAR from a "bootstrap do-it-yourself" nation. As I said before, we offer SO much to the "less fortunate", and I understand the overall benefit of a well-rounded nation.

    My comment was in regards to how nothing is ever enough. Just because something is in the best interest of a nation doesn't make it an "entitlement" -- often it's charity, plain and simple. No one is entitled to an education, or entitled to health care, or entitled to a job, etc., etc. Does it help the nation if everyone has those things? Sure, but it's only "free" to the person receiving the benefit.

    If we called it what it truly was, maybe people would be more thankful for what they have instead of always saying they "deserve" more . . .
    Last edited by OCCH; 12-07-2011 at 07:36 PM.

  8. #88
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;4268407]...and decreased the value of your home to boot...[/QUOTE]

    If you think encouraging people to take on debt they can't afford for tax reasons is proping up home prices take a look at the results of what a massive bubble caused by leverage did to home prices. In the long run stability in home prices will be maintained by people taking on debt they can afford not debt tied to tax policy that will change based on the needs of the federal government.

    The government can no more afford subsidizing home owners than it can subsidizing those who can work who choose not to because the government is providing them with a check.

    The reason we will never get pro-growth tax reform is conservatives like Chief prefer to have tax shelters rather than transparency in the tax code no different than libs like Bit who want higher taxes on corporations and high income earners without getting rid of the covert breaks and give backs to low income workers.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-08-2011 at 08:58 AM.

  9. #89
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4268176]The sentence in bold tells of someone who believes the people should not question government. .[/QUOTE]

    wrong I believe a reponsible gov't pays for it's obligations

    whether or not you or I agree with those obligations, that money is already spent.

  10. #90
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4268835]wrong I believe a reponsible gov't pays for it's obligationsp[/quote]

    And a responsible citizenry ensures those obligations are appropriate, and as efficient and cost-effective as possible, or terminated if appropriate.

    [quote] or not you or I agree with those obligations, that money is already spent.[/QUOTE]

    It's amazing how many of your comments, when distilled, come down to "give up, we won, it's our way or nothing". No tinpot tyrant in you, eh Bit?:rolleyes:

  11. #91
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4268841]And a responsible citizenry ensures those obligations are appropriate, and as efficient and cost-effective as possible, or terminated if appropriate.[/quote]

    there's a difference between future spending and past obligations. We can debate all day long about whether a certain piece of spending is appropriate that doesn't change the fact that past spending must be paid for...


    [QUOTE=Warfish;4268841]
    It's amazing how many of your comments, when distilled, come down to "give up, we won, it's our way or nothing". No tinpot tyrant in you, eh Bit?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    we all win, as a fact, being alive and well in the USA in 2011. Im not gloating I'm being real. The reality is the gov't has spent alot of money and it must be paid. I see alot of right wing and libertarians talk about fiscal responsibility yet never advocating that we raise revenue to pay our outstanding bills?

  12. #92
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4268844]Im not gloating I'm being real. The reality is the gov't has spent alot of money and it must be paid. I see alot of right wing and libertarians talk about fiscal responsibility yet never advocating that we raise revenue to pay our outstanding bills?[/QUOTE]

    Thats because you only hear what you want to hear (which, generally speaking, is nothing) and prefer to prop up your usual sickly straw men, so you can feel about knocking them down.

    You know, like "Libertarins love Anarchy!" and "Conservatives have no ideas!" and "Every Issue We Talk about it settled, you lost, get over it".

    We get it Stalin, you're not really up for any debate, you just want to tell us your side won, and we all should stfu and get with the program....or else, if you had your way.

  13. #93
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4268835]wrong I believe a reponsible gov't pays for it's obligations

    whether or not you or I agree with those obligations, that money is already spent.[/QUOTE]

    I agree completely.

    Obligation comes from "obliged". Why are we obliged to pay for entitlements to almost 50 percent of this country? That needs to change.

    Responsible government? We haven't had one in 30 years.

  14. #94
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4268786]If you think encouraging people to take on debt they can't afford for tax reasons is proping up home prices take a look at the results of what a massive bubble caused by leverage did to home prices. In the long run stability in home prices will be maintained by people taking on debt they can afford not debt tied to tax policy that will change based on the needs of the federal government.

    The government can no more afford subsidizing home owners than it can subsidizing those who can work who choose not to because the government is providing them with a check.

    The reason we will never get pro-growth tax reform is conservatives like Chief prefer to have tax shelters rather than transparency in the tax code no different than libs like Bit who want higher taxes on corporations and high income earners without getting rid of the covert breaks and give backs to low income workers.[/QUOTE]

    I had a second look at the plan last night. In order to make it work they would need to put a means test on the deductions. I like most of what the commission had to say. The two issues i have are with the phase out of mortgage tax deduction and the health insurance premiums. For me personally those two issues represent over $60,000 per year. That would result in $20,000 in new taxes to pay. Since I consider myself an average middle to upper middle income family there is no way I could sign up for 20K in new taxes. If they put a means test on it and only phased those things out for millionaires I suppose that could be better but in general I'd lean against major tax increases for anyone.

  15. #95
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4268867]If they put a means test on it and only phased those things out for millionaires ....[/QUOTE]

    Welkomme to the klub, komrade :D

    Grab a hammer and sickle and let's eat the capitalist piggies...

  16. #96
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4268893]Welkomme to the klub, komrade :D

    Grab a hammer and sickle and let's eat the capitalist piggies...[/QUOTE]

    but in general I'd lean against major tax increases for anyone.

    You forgot the last part of the sentence.

  17. #97
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4268844]there's a difference between future spending and past obligations. We can debate all day long about whether a certain piece of spending is appropriate that doesn't change the fact that past spending must be paid for...




    we all win, as a fact, being alive and well in the USA in 2011. Im not gloating I'm being real. The reality is the gov't has spent alot of money and it must be paid. I see alot of right wing and libertarians talk about fiscal responsibility yet never advocating that we raise revenue to pay our outstanding bills?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think anyone is looking for America to default on our debt. But saying that we will pay existing debt doesn't mean that we are ok with allowing the hemoraging to continue.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us