Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even more

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

One good place to get more revenues would be to have EVERY religious institution pay taxes, and just take deductions ONLY in what is properly demonstrated to go 100% to charities.

I can't imagine a worse idea. For one thing, their income is a drop in the bucket -- less than $50 billion I believe for ALL churches in the entire United States. Suppose half of that is spent on charity and the rest is taxable. If taxed at 15%, that'd yield $3.75 billion, around 0.1% of federal expenditures.

And for that meager pittance you get a tidal wave of separation of church and state lawsuits that will inevitably render the unfair singling-out of churches (and not other non-profit institutions like universities, non-profit hospitals, and charitable organizations) unconstitutional.

Big corporations gets much "corporate welfare" and still uses every loop holes on the books (and some additional ones!). This is a kind of entitlements that could be cut immediately.

You won't get any argument from me, but not even libertarians imagine you'll save much money that way. According to the Cato Institute, corporate welfare amounts to about $100 billion annually.

That includes a LOT of things you would probably object to having cut, like agricultural subsidies and rural utilities development.

The tax rates should go back up to the Clinton era for ALL (yes, even the lower income), BUT somme loopholes that advantage the wealthiest a lot more than the poor should be closed (i.e., we could keep the mortgage interest deduction. . .up to the level of "jumbo mortgage." Anything above the level of "jumbo mortgage - - I believe about $400,000 mortgage these days, but it varies per area - - should NOT be tax deductible).

And, BONUSES should be taxed higher, much higher if they are above 3X the salary.

If we get rid of the tax cuts, we raise about an extra $400 billion in revenue. And while I'm all for taxing corporate bonuses more, that wouldn't raise much money either. At its worst, Wall Street bonuses were something like $80 billion. Tax them by half and you get $40 billion.

So all in all you're talking about raising around $550 billion, less than a third of the 2010 calendar-year budget deficit, and that's before the lawsuits that render part of those changes unconstitutional. Still got another $1.2 billion or so to cut in spending.

Here's a better idea: why not go back to the Clinton budget of 1999, and not just the revenue? We'd need to cut maybe 5-10% of spending on top of that to make it actually balance, given the much higher debt service costs today, but people weren't dying in the streets then. Surely the world could survive going back to federal expenditures being just under $2 trillion.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Then, how do you explain that CEO who drove their company to the edge of bankcrupcy, who had to take a bailout from the government, still end up making more in bonus than 500 of their employees?

What specific CEO's are you talking about here?

Do you think the American public would have voted to give them those bonus?

The American public voted the people in office that handed no-strings attached money to banks that drove themselves into a crisis...Since we don't seem to be making any attempt to change such a policy, the American people get what they vote for.

Do you think their own employees would have?

Ask the employees.

No. . .it is not "free market!" It is manipulated market. It is a market that is driven not by what is good for society, what is good for the workforce, is good for the company's top management. . .it is a manipulated market that says, Screw the public, screw the employees, show the TOP stock holders an increase in stock price, and you get paid astronomical salaries and bonuses, even if it means laying off thousands of people to get that increase in stock value!

Companies don't run around firing thousands of people in some effort to make the stock price look a little better...

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I can't imagine a worse idea. For one thing, their income is a drop in the bucket -- less than $50 billion I believe for ALL churches in the entire United States. Suppose half of that is spent on charity and the rest is taxable. If taxed at 15%, that'd yield $3.75 billion, around 0.1% of federal expenditures.

And for that meager pittance you get a tidal wave of separation of church and state lawsuits that will inevitably render the unfair singling-out of churches (and not other non-profit institutions like universities, non-profit hospitals, and charitable organizations) unconstitutional.



You won't get any argument from me, but not even libertarians imagine you'll save much money that way. According to the Cato Institute, corporate welfare amounts to about $100 billion annually.

That includes a LOT of things you would probably object to having cut, like agricultural subsidies and rural utilities development.



If we get rid of the tax cuts, we raise about an extra $400 billion in revenue. And while I'm all for taxing corporate bonuses more, that wouldn't raise much money either. At its worst, Wall Street bonuses were something like $80 billion. Tax them by half and you get $40 billion.

So all in all you're talking about raising around $550 billion, less than a third of the 2010 calendar-year budget deficit, and that's before the lawsuits that render part of those changes unconstitutional. Still got another $1.2 billion or so to cut in spending.

Here's a better idea: why not go back to the Clinton budget of 1999, and not just the revenue? We'd need to cut maybe 5-10% of spending on top of that to make it actually balance, given the much higher debt service costs today, but people weren't dying in the streets then. Surely the world could survive going back to federal expenditures being just under $2 trillion.

IF we are no longer in two wars. . .maybe!
By the way, $550 billions, or 1/3 of the 2010 budget deficit ADDED to tax increase and a 5% cut across the board for All government employees would go a long way.

We may not be able to balance the budget in one year, not even 5 years, but If we could cut the deficit by 25% every year for 5 years. . .we would be saving money.

And, I still disagree with you about tax cuts for Churches. First, I believe that, precisely, not taxing "religious institutions" just because they are Churches is not separation of Church and States. Now, not taxing what they give away in charity, or for schools, etc. . .that's fine with me.

I am still boiling at the fact that one person in our neighborhood is the minister of a local church, a poor church in a relatively poor neighborhood. Yet, his church BOUGHT a house in my neighborhood for him, a $750,000 home, unfinished, so his parishioners finished it for him (landscaping, swimming pools, hardwood floors, etc. . .).

The average income in his parish is probably around $30,000 a year.

But. . .the house was bought with "tax free money" and the parishioners are servicing the loan with "tax free money!"

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

IF we are no longer in two wars. . .maybe!
By the way, $550 billions, or 1/3 of the 2010 budget deficit ADDED to tax increase and a 5% cut across the board for All government employees would go a long way.

We may not be able to balance the budget in one year, not even 5 years, but If we could cut the deficit by 25% every year for 5 years. . .we would be saving money.

And, I still disagree with you about tax cuts for Churches. First, I believe that, precisely, not taxing "religious institutions" just because they are Churches is not separation of Church and States. Now, not taxing what they give away in charity, or for schools, etc. . .that's fine with me.

I am still boiling at the fact that one person in our neighborhood is the minister of a local church, a poor church in a relatively poor neighborhood. Yet, his church BOUGHT a house in my neighborhood for him, a $750,000 home, unfinished, so his parishioners finished it for him (landscaping, swimming pools, hardwood floors, etc. . .).

The average income in his parish is probably around $30,000 a year.

But. . .the house was bought with "tax free money" and the parishioners are servicing the loan with "tax free money!"

If you ask me, the parishioners are servicing the loan with their stupidity.

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

If you ask me, the parishioners are servicing the loan with their stupidity.

Yes. That's the advantage of "bringing God" to people who are gullible, are full of good intention, and are neither very educated or very smart!

I guess ministers are certainly not the only one taking advantage of simple people's good will, but doing it "in the name of God" seems to me to be even more hypocritical and evil!

 

[clarkatticus]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I know we live in a world economy. I know business has to make a profit. But where does ekking out a little more profit at the expense of the nation that allows you to exist fit into patriotism? How much is enough? When did the world become more important than the nation? As the most productive nation on earth, how is it we ship our jobs overseas? You are going to say that our companies are overtaxed here and our employees overpaid so we cannot compete with other nations. I will say, instead of lowering our bar to compete, force the other nations to raise to our level in wages conditions and trade agreements. With out the American consumer no other nation can sell their product like they are now, we need to use this leverage while we still have it.

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I know we live in a world economy. I know business has to make a profit. But where does ekking out a little more profit at the expense of the nation that allows you to exist fit into patriotism? How much is enough? When did the world become more important than the nation? As the most productive nation on earth, how is it we ship our jobs overseas? You are going to say that our companies are overtaxed here and our employees overpaid so we cannot compete with other nations. I will say, instead of lowering our bar to compete, force the other nations to raise to our level in wages conditions and trade agreements. With out the American consumer no other nation can sell their product like they are now, we need to use this leverage while we still have it.

I agree with you Clark. However, there is a big flaw in all that argument: The rest of the world DOESN'T cost less to business!

At least Europe is not cheaper to do business in. . .not in the way the tries to say it is!

Europe has a LOT more labor laws that protect workers from businesses. Their labor laws requests shorter hours (about 32 a week), longer vacations (at least three weeks to start, but an average of 4 or 5 weeks per year), many business provide "company cars" with both cars and gas paid by the company, and "lunch vouchers," for employees who cannot return home for lunch. They have a LOT of "unions," and the taxes are much higher.

They also have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, which makes it easier for workers to move from one company to the next, but they also protect employees by making it a law that if an employee is laidoff, he gets a minimum of 3 months notice (or pay), but if an employee wants to leave, he gives his employer 6 weeks notice (unless the employer agrees to let him go early).

And yet, here, we think that Unions are killing our manufacturing! It is soooo crazy!

There are so many illusions (urban legends?) in the "explanations" given for US corporations selecting to take their jobs oversea. . .but believe me. . .they do not take work to Europe because it cost them less, or because they can escape the demands of the Unions!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Hey, I am all for a flat tax, but we both know that will never happen.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

The problem I see with trying to implement such a plan is that the people who already pay nothing in taxes, at least federal income taxes, (already almost the majority of the country), will cry foul and kill the proposal.

Where would you "conservatives" be, without your Absolutes?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Then, how do you explain that CEO who drove their company to the edge of bankcrupcy, who had to take a bailout from the government, still end up making more in bonus than 500 of their employees?

What specific CEO's are you talking about here?

Here's a few......​

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

IF we are no longer in two wars. . .maybe!
By the way, $550 billions, or 1/3 of the 2010 budget deficit ADDED to tax increase and a 5% cut across the board for All government employees would go a long way.

We may not be able to balance the budget in one year, not even 5 years, but If we could cut the deficit by 25% every year for 5 years. . .we would be saving money.

And, I still disagree with you about tax cuts for Churches. First, I believe that, precisely, not taxing "religious institutions" just because they are Churches is not separation of Church and States. Now, not taxing what they give away in charity, or for schools, etc. . .that's fine with me.

I am still boiling at the fact that one person in our neighborhood is the minister of a local church, a poor church in a relatively poor neighborhood. Yet, his church BOUGHT a house in my neighborhood for him, a $750,000 home, unfinished, so his parishioners finished it for him (landscaping, swimming pools, hardwood floors, etc. . .).

The average income in his parish is probably around $30,000 a year.

But. . .the house was bought with "tax free money" and the parishioners are servicing the loan with "tax free money!"

The wars combined cost another $100 billion annually. That still leaves about $1.1 trillion to cut. Heck, cut DoD in half and save another $400 billion or so; that still leaves another $700 billion to cut, and dumps a few tens or even a hundred thousand unemployed workers back into the market, reducing the tax base.

According to BLS, there are around 2 million federal employees making an average of $74,403. Round the total amount spent on their salaries up to $150 billion. Deducting 5% from that would save about $7.5 billion annually -- another drop in the bucket.

You gonna raise close to a trillion dollars in taxes in the middle of a crippling recession? And you have the temerity to say anyone asking for modest spending cuts is a "dreamer"?

Churches are not tax-exempt because they're churches, they're tax exempt because they're 501(c) organizations and bound by the same rules as all other 501(c) organizations, including non-profit animal shelters, cemetery maintenance companies, farmers' co-ops, etc. You want to tax them, too, or just unconstitutionally single out churches cause you happen not to like them?

Your personal anecdotes don't interest me. They certainly don't demonstrate anything.

Really, there is no easy way out of this mess. We drove our economy into the ground through years of free trade, mass immigration, and inflation, and we covered it all up by lying about the inflation and covering up the GDP shortfalls caused by the other two through borrowing. Now the credit markets are drying up and we have to either slash spending or raise taxes. Either one will cripple the economy, and by "cripple the economy" I mean expose the vacuum. We're spending 12% of GDP in borrowed money annually, but GDP growth is around 2%. That means when you back out deficits that have to be repaid, the economy has been contracting at 10%+ a year for the last several years.

Incidentally, a "depression" is two consecutive quarters of 10%+ GDP contraction.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

No, that's the point.

And it isn't even the top 5%, it is the top 2%!

Charity is wonderful. . .but it has NEVER been enough to take care of the poor, the old, the disabled, the roads, the schools for all.

Modern government programs have also NEVER been enough. At least with charity there is no coercion. Though I must make a correction and say that private institutions generally provided better education than public schools.

One good place to get more revenues would be to have EVERY religious institution pay taxes, and just take deductions ONLY in what is properly demonstrated to go 100% to charities.

Which would result in a violation of the freedom to exercise religion clause of the constitution. Are you not in favor of all people being allowed to practice whatever religion they want to without gov interference? P.S. technically 100% of religious revenue already does go to charities.

People will ALWAYS have a good excuse why not to give that 1 or 2% extra to charity.

Then those people must not want to help the needy. And if the population of the US does not want to help the needy then it would be wrong for the gov of the US to pass laws against their will to force them to help the needy - we are after all a gov that makes laws in accordance with the statement "by the people". (actually I think there is a simpler explanation as to why people do not give more. Ever wondered why there are no charities that provide medical care to those who need it? Because there are no people who are in need of medical care. Every single person in this country has medical care. And while the food banks often have shelves that are not full they always have food to give. So basically people don't give a lot because they know that the needs are presently being met)

In fact, the middle class and lower middle class is often more generous (proportionaly) than the very wealthy, who are usually very careful to calculate just how much "charity" they can deduct from their taxes!

Yes thats true. I bet there is a reason for that has is related to how the governement handles the situation. After all, the more socialistic a country is the less the people give. Could it be that the tax code rather than encouraging giving actually discourages rich people from giving as much as middle class people?

Big corporations gets much "corporate welfare" and still uses every loop holes on the books (and some additional ones!). This is a kind of entitlements that could be cut immediately.

I could not agree more!! Politicians of both parties talk about this but they never do anything about it. of course politicians of both parties give away our money in exchange for corporate campaign contributions.

The tax rates should go back up to the Clinton era for ALL (yes, even the lower income), BUT somme loopholes that advantage the wealthiest a lot more than the poor should be closed (i.e., we could keep the mortgage interest deduction. . .up to the level of "jumbo mortgage." Anything above the level of "jumbo mortgage - - I believe about $400,000 mortgage these days, but it varies per area - - should NOT be tax deductible).

And, BONUSES should be taxed higher, much higher if they are above 3X the salary.

Why are you so unfair? I see a lot of "class warfare" there. The tax code needs to be fair. Either no mortgage deduction or all get a mortgage deduction. It is unfair to give it to some and not others.

So why should there be a mortgage deduction at all? What business of the governments is it how you spend your money? They should just butt out!
Instead the tax code is used by the gov to meddle in how we spend our money in a thousand ways.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Of course it is not right to steal your neighbors laptop, new clothes, or car, etc.

Tell us why it is wrong to steal a person's things?

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I didn't think of that. However, I still think the capital gains tax should be a progressive tax. What types of investments would escape capital gains that the top 2% could use?

Capital gains taxes already are progressive. The tax is 15% for rich people and 5% for people in the lowest two tax brackets.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

As you have described your situation, you may be out of touch with the reality. A majority of senior have NO savings, and live from one month to the next on their social security. They have no insurance, except for Medicare insurance.

I think someone has mislead you.

The rich tend to be older because it takes time to get rich and "poor" college kids comprise most of the poor. Here are some stats:

Average net worth by age:

* < 25: $1,475
* 25 – 34: $8,525
* 35 – 44: $51,575
* 45 – 54: $98,350
* 55 – 64: $180,125
* 65+: $232,000

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/average-net-worth-of-an-american-family.html

P.s. older people choose to drop other insurance when they qualify for medicare. So the reason many elders have only medicare is because it makes sense to save the premiums on other insurance. But do most seniors only have medicare?

"about 17 percent of beneficiaries buy Medigap plans. Another 34 percent get such coverage through a former employer." That means that a majority have insurance other than medicare. And why do some not have insurance other than medicare? Well, since the old tend to be the same as the rich then it could be because they don't need additional insurance.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/July/15/medigap-medicare-supplemental-faq.aspx

Why is it important for these facts to be understood correctly? Because we all base our viewpoints on the facts (hopefully). Perhaps if people get better facts they will form better views.