Re: How are we going to raise 4.3 trillion?

On Oct 27, 10:55 pm, "Octopus Ride" <davk...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Carlisle" <carrie-...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:GcmdnWXc16zE3ZvUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



"Octopus Ride" <davk...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Its like their argument that he's some sort of radical Islamic extremist
terrorist with a forged birth certificate and a Black Panther for a wife;
good god, the argument that he's a liberal Democrat with a liberal voting
record isn't good enough?
Whose argument, Dave??

The argument of John McCain and Sarah Palin as evidenced by their speeches,
their surrogates' comments, their radio and TV ads, their direct mail
pieces, their robocalls, and the right wing media they work with on a daily
basis (Fox News, Drudge, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc).

You are exaggerating of course, as usual, digging through the fever swamps
of the net to try and prove that those in 'flyover country' who are not
voting Obama are primarily motivated by fake rumors, total falsehoods and
complete ignorance. I get it.

Good, because its extremely obvious.  I'd hate for you to miss it.

How else do you explain how an average Republican can call a tax increase on
a few wealthy people coupled with a tax cut for 95% of the country
"socialist redistributionism" while at the same time calling a new tax on
middle class health benefits coupled with a tax cut for a few wealthy people
"super keen neato"?

My contention after looking at IRS tax data is that no one is being
completely honest on their goal with tax policy. People simply want to
hear that they will pay less, and their ideologically opposed
candidate will raise their taxes. I would need to go back and look at
the numbers, but I am willing to bet we are looking at an (severely)
exponential curve when it comes to income versus population. There are
some *very* high income people and lots of low income people. Couple
that with federal budgetary needs, and you need to make a choice on
who is going to pay what. If high income earners pay more of the tax
burden (and they do based on tax versus AGI) than low income earners,
then I think you could make the case that it is "redistributionism".
The lower earners don't shoulder the same burden of taxes paid versus
AGI. This is merely only focusing on income tax revenue; however,
lower income people keep more of their money. That is the reality.

Hence, the discussion should focus on what is the goal of income tax
policy? The reality is that a certain level of income tax revenue is
required. How do we collect the needed revenue while promoting a
positive economy. The classic example is "trickle down". If you cut
the taxes on high income earners, they will invest in the economy in
ways that benefit everyone. However, the converse could be asserted;
if we cut low income tax rates (or give rebates), that money will be
spent which stimulates the economy and benefits all (including the
high end which may own the businesses benefiting). Either way, it is
engineering economic policy based on "expected" societal behaviors.
Another option would be to reduce the burden on "small businesses" so
they can get a bit ahead and benefit more people (assuming they employ
a high percentage of the workforce). There is a lot to consider that
is not trivial.

I don't think it is an easy question. The debate veers off of what is
right and sound economic policy into what is fair?

The problem today is that "overpaid" CEOs are highly visible due to
the current economy. They are an easy target as people who have not
"paid their share". I would contend that they paid their share, but
they were grossly overpaid to begin with. That is a whole separate can
of worms.

Kurt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who Really Owns the Roads?
    ... And his fund is based out side the US so he doesn't have to pay the tax ... Caribbean lets foreign investors pay no US taxes. ... would be bad for the economy. ... The obvious answer would be that if he's not paying US income tax there ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Old WD Needs Memory Transplant - Forgets IRS Answered
    ... IRS Tax Correspondence ... deduction recoveries under sections 111and 56. ... improperly excluding such refunds from alternative minimum taxable income ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • IRSs Multi-Billion Flimflam: "Double or Nothing" Taxation of Tax Refunds
    ... arguments for "DOUBLE OR NOTHING" taxation of tax refunds. ... include itemized deduction recoveries in the calculation of taxable ... the gross income attributable to an itemized ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • IRSS FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO DEFEND DOUBLE TAXATION OF RECOVERIES
    ... When the following letters were published in Tax Analysts Tax Notes ... What was not addressed by the IRS respondents is that a state income ... AMTI in a year the AMT was paid. ... mechanism concerns whether the taxpayer got a reduction in tax ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Excellent News - Bush Approval Slumps
    ... Tax cuts are included in that. ... >> Think about it this way: a 100% cut in taxes will not cause the economy ... A 30% average *income* tax rate is insane. ... but when you look at the businesses that have moved ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading