Languish.org

In general, I think the across-the-board cuts that are going on are a good thing. However, I also think that taxes need to be raised, as well, probably to the 1960s levels. I didn't break it down regarding economic levels because I'm assuming a graduated tax increase.

What say you, Languish?

Raise 'em to the roof.

Of course, your taxes are too low. But which one?

What you really need is a Product & Service Tax of 5-8%

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:30:51 AM
Of course, your taxes are too low. But which one?

What you really need is a Product & Service Tax of 5-8%

I'd be okay with taxes being on par with how they were in the 1960s, plus adding a VAT. I've long thought we've been stupid not to have that.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 11:36:12 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:30:51 AM
Of course, your taxes are too low. But which one?

What you really need is a Product & Service Tax of 5-8%

I'd be okay with taxes being on par with how they were in the 1960s, plus adding a VAT. I've long thought we've been stupid not to have that.

How different are they now from the '60s?

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:36:53 AM

How different are they now from the '60s?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000-480%2Fus-income-tax-top-bracket.jpg&hash=55287295f397d6a6c0ab245fcb6fcae30ac04e4f)

As much as I would like to be taxed less, I know we may need to be taxed more in some areas, less in others and cut spending. Voted option 3. In my opinion, the whole tax law needs to be redone.

:blink:

@Meri, you a commie?

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 23, 2013, 11:41:16 AM
As much as I would like to be taxed less, I know we may need to be taxed more in some areas, less in others and cut spending. Voted option 3. In my opinion, the whole tax law needs to be redone.

I think that's everyone's opinion. The problem is in figuring out how to get the Dems and the Repubs to work together to find a reasonable compromise. Of course. As if they haven't hit us over the head with that "little" problem already. ;)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
Raise 'em to the roof.

Too funny.

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
:blink:

@Meri, you a commie?

That's the tax rate for those at the top tier of income levels, I think. Not your average Joe Shmoe.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
Raise 'em to the roof.

Yea, the forty seven percenters need their hand outs.

I'd go with something like:
1 million+ - 50%
250k-1mil - 40%
100k-250k - 35%
Under 100k, same rates as now.

Considering there's also state & local taxes to deal with, once over 50% federal income tax you're getting into the area where the Laffer Curve will start having effect.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 11:44:44 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
:blink:

@Meri, you a commie?

That's the tax rate for those at the top tier of income levels, I think. Not your average Joe Shmoe.

Of course but in this age of world finance anything over 50% is crazy. What's the threshold of the top tier income?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2013, 11:46:34 AM
I'd go with something like:
1 million+ - 50%
250k-1mil - 40%
100k-250k - 35%
Under 100k, same rates as now.

Considering there's also state & local taxes to deal with, once over 50% federal income tax you're getting into the area where the Laffer Curve will start having effect.

I could get on board with that.

Nay

Return to the Clinton era levels, no higher though.

ROTW other option - You didnt have a "dont have a view" option.  I dont know nearly enough about your tax structure to have an opinion.  What I do know is that your tax structure is so complex I doubt most people know enough to have an informed view.

We need some taxes to feed this beast but that goes along with restructuring the tax code and cuts or restructuring on areas of spending that need it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
ROTW other option - You didnt have a "dont have a view" option.  I dont know nearly enough about your tax structure to have an opinion.  What I do know is that your tax structure is so complex I doubt most people know enough to have an informed view.

Heh. Those of us who have to file our taxes every year know quite a bit about them, I'd think. Certainly, we know what's a tax write-off versus what isn't.

EDIT: And the "ROTW - What do I care? I live in a Utopian Socialist Society." covers your "dont have a view" option. ;)

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:19:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
ROTW other option - You didnt have a "dont have a view" option.  I dont know nearly enough about your tax structure to have an opinion.  What I do know is that your tax structure is so complex I doubt most people know enough to have an informed view.

Heh. Those of us who have to file our taxes every year know quite a bit about them, I'd think. Certainly, we know what's a tax write-off versus what isn't.

EDIT: And the "ROTW - What do I care? I live in a Utopian Socialist Society." covers your "dont have a view" option. ;)

I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:30:55 PM


I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

I know the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. I'm okay with paying more. I know that people who make a hell of a lot more than I do pay even less than I do, percentage-wise.

I'm okay with saying that I think we should raise taxes based on that. I don't care if you are or not. :)

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:36:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:30:55 PM


I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

I know the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. I'm okay with paying more. I know that people who make a hell of a lot more than I do pay even less than I do, percentage-wise.

I'm okay with saying that I think we should raise taxes based on that. I don't care if you are or not. :)

Yeah, you are missing the point.  The question isnt what the tax rate ought to be.  The question is how do you construct a fair tax system in which the marginal tax rate is actually paid rather than avoided.  The answer to that question is often not raising the marginal rate as a higher marginal rate increases the likelihood that high income earners will spend the resources necessary to avoid that marginal rate.

The question is how do you construct a tax system in which people actually pay their fair share.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:41:11 PM
Yeah, you are missing the point.  The question isnt what the tax rate ought to be.  The question is how do you construct a fair tax system in which the marginal tax rate is actually paid rather than avoided.  The answer to that question is often not raising the marginal rate as a higher marginal rate increases the likelihood that high income earners will spend the resources necessary to avoid that marginal rate.

The question is how do you construct a tax system in which people actually pay their fair share.

No, that's actually not the question. Since I wrote it, I'm pretty sure that I know what I was asking.

Lemme spell it out for you: Should the US raise it's federal taxes?

Pretty easy, right? Now, that can be interpreted a whole lot of ways - should we revamp our tax codes, should we up the percentage, should we get rid of tax write-offs, etc. - but the question I asked was pretty straight forward.

Now, if you want to ask the other questions, that's great! It's a good discussion. But it's not what I asked. :)

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:36:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:30:55 PM


I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

I know the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. I'm okay with paying more. I know that people who make a hell of a lot more than I do pay even less than I do, percentage-wise.

I'm okay with saying that I think we should raise taxes based on that. I don't care if you are or not. :)

Some people who make a hell of a lot more than you do pay even less than you do, percentage-wise.  There are also plenty of them that pay way more, percentage-wise than you.

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 12:49:08 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:36:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:30:55 PM


I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

I know the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. I'm okay with paying more. I know that people who make a hell of a lot more than I do pay even less than I do, percentage-wise.

I'm okay with saying that I think we should raise taxes based on that. I don't care if you are or not. :)

Some people who make a hell of a lot more than you do pay even less than you do, percentage-wise.  There are also plenty of them that pay way more, percentage-wise than you.

Yes. That is true.

That does not change my opinion.

Yes Meri.  We can all read.  The thing you need to understand is your question misses the most fundamental issue in most tax codes.  Marginal rates are meaningless if the tax code permits high income earners to avoid the marginal tax percentage and the higher the marginal tax percentage the more incentive high income earners have to avoid it.

So go ahead and make the assumption that raising marginal tax rates will increase tax revenue.  But dont be surprised if you assumption doesnt come true.

I don't think there's any desperate need to raise taxes. The deficits under control and falling and the debt's under control and set to fall in about 2 years time.

Personally I wouldn't worry about rates so much. I'd suggest moving to a PAYE system for employment income tax and a big reform of corporation tax to make the US more competitive on that front. And, because I always favour it, some tax simplification.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:54:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 12:49:08 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 12:36:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:30:55 PM


I doubt very much that doing your own taxes provides you with much information regarding the many and various methods available to higher income earners to avoid taxes and it provides you with no information at all regarding corporate taxation.

I know the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. I'm okay with paying more. I know that people who make a hell of a lot more than I do pay even less than I do, percentage-wise.

I'm okay with saying that I think we should raise taxes based on that. I don't care if you are or not. :)

Some people who make a hell of a lot more than you do pay even less than you do, percentage-wise.  There are also plenty of them that pay way more, percentage-wise than you.

Yes. That is true.

That does not change my opinion.

Well the same has me saying "No way, no how"

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 11:36:12 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2013, 11:30:51 AM
Of course, your taxes are too low. But which one?

What you really need is a Product & Service Tax of 5-8%

I'd be okay with taxes being on par with how they were in the 1960s, plus adding a VAT. I've long thought we've been stupid not to have that.

The top rates were 90% back then, which is a little excessive.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 12:58:25 PM
Yes Meri.  We can all read. 

I wasn't sure. Your post made it unclear.

QuoteThe thing you need to understand is your question misses the most fundamental issue in most tax codes.  Marginal rates are meaningless if the tax code permits high income earners to avoid the marginal tax percentage and the higher the marginal tax percentage the more incentive high income earners have to avoid it.

So go ahead and make the assumption that raising marginal tax rates will increase tax revenue.  But dont be surprised if you assumption doesnt come true.

Golly gee, thanks, Wally! I would never have known that without you!

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 01:05:27 PM
Well the same has me saying "No way, no how"

Okay. :)

Simplistic understanding of tax policy by someone who is a proven intellectual light weight, not too surprising.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2013, 01:19:03 PM
Simplistic understanding of tax policy by someone who is a proven intellectual light weight, not too surprising.

:rolleyes:

As if the intricacies of the tax code in the US hasn't been discussed ad nausea here. I assumed that you "intellectual giants" would be able to include that in your voting. I didn't realize that it was beyond you to do so.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2013, 01:19:03 PM
Simplistic understanding of tax policy by someone who is a proven intellectual light weight, not too surprising.

:rolleyes:

As if the intricacies of the tax code in the US hasn't been discussed ad nausea here. I assumed that you "intellectual giants" would be able to include that in your voting. I didn't realize that it was beyond you to do so.

Don't lump all of us into the same category.  I for one did include the intricacies of the tax code into my voting.

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:24:53 PM

Don't lump all of us into the same category.  I for one did include the intricacies of the tax code into my voting.

:hug:

That's 'cause you're an intellectual lightweight, like me. :)

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:26:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:24:53 PM

Don't lump all of us into the same category.  I for one did include the intricacies of the tax code into my voting.

:hug:

That's 'cause you're an intellectual lightweight, like me. :)

Doesn't seem like you did - given the one-sided simple statement that you made. Well that and your 60s tax code support.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:16:19 PM
I would never have known that without you!

Once you get past all your normal defensiveness you may come to appreciate that raising the marginal tax rate on middle class tax payers makes little sense if the goal is to have the rich pay their fair share through an across the board increase.  That is why your question which assumes some form of progressive across the board tax increase is deeply flawed.

But you knew that, you claim, and still asked the question.  Curious.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:26:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:24:53 PM

Don't lump all of us into the same category.  I for one did include the intricacies of the tax code into my voting.

:hug:

That's 'cause you're an intellectual lightweight, like me. :)

You realize it is possible to answer your question in a manner that recognizes that the question is flawed.

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 01:27:12 PM
Doesn't seem like you did - given the one-sided simple statement that you made. Well that and your 60s tax code support.

Which one? Apparently, every statement I make is a simple statement. :)

The '60s tax code "support" was just answering GF's question of what the tax rate was then. Admittedly, I was being a bit facetious about using the 90% rate, but I do still believe that we should raise taxes. For the record, I voted the third option, because I don't believe that raising taxes is the only answer. I like that we have a system in place to cut the budget automatically, and I'd like to keep it. At the same time, I favor universal healthcare supported by private insurance companies through subsidies. Cuts alone won't get us that. Ergo, I favor a significant increase in the tax rates.

As for the tax codes, as I stated, I don't think that there's a single individual in the United States that doesn't believe that that's necessary. In fact, it's never even a question anymore. What is in question is "how" to do it, and since there are at least two fundamental beliefs on how to do so and no one can come to a consensus, we have to deal with what we have until they can get their heads out of their asses.

In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

Meri, think about the simplistic answers you posted.  "Yes, I am in favour of a tax hike because we need more tax revenue".  Your approach is overly simplistic because it ignores the issue of tax avoidance which you say you understand.

So please, square that circle for us.

I suspect that when you posted the poll you really did think that increasing marginal rates would create more tax revenue.  But it isnt so simplistically true.

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

That is an interesting suggestion.  I think it has some merit and would certainly go a long way to eliminate tax avoidance.  If the US took this step other Western Countries would be fairly quick to follow.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:28:59 PM

Once you get past all your normal defensiveness you may come to appreciate that raising the marginal tax rate on middle class tax payers makes little sense if the goal is to have the rich pay their fair share through an across the board increase.  That is why your question which assumes some form of progressive across the board tax increase is deeply flawed.

But you knew that, you claim, and still asked the question.  Curious.

I disagree. I think a nominal increase on the middle class is a good idea. Not for the cash generated, but more for the idea that they are a part of the process that is giving them health insurance, a military, a decent infrastructure, and a retirement option.

I think that one of the biggest differences between the 1950s and 1960s is how the population sees how the government works. Back then (before the Vietnam War, anyway), taxes went toward making the country better. Now, people see it as squandered with no return on that investment. I think making severe cuts in areas that need them (primarily the bureaucracy and departmental bloat that the current cuts seem to be getting rid of) while raising taxes for a purpose (Universal healthcare, Medicare,  Social Security, infrastructure) might help to reverse that trend.

There's a major branding issue going on. Those opposed see it as "socialism", and that's what's beat into the public eye. But not all socialism is bad, and when broken down and asked as individual questions, most Americans want those systems in place. I can't see having those things without severe cuts and a severe tax hike.

Yes, it's far more complex than that. I realize that I have a somewhat rudimentary understanding on how the systems would work in action. However, I don't doubt that as a general theory, I'm correct.

Mind you, none of this takes into account the regulations that allow companies to dodge a huge chunk of taxes, too, and yes, changing those is essential toward getting us to the long-term goal. That is, however, a different beast than whether we should tax the individual more or not.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:37:39 PM
Meri, think about the simplistic answers you posted.  "Yes, I am in favour of a tax hike because we need more tax revenue".  Your approach is overly simplistic because it ignores the issue of tax avoidance which you say you understand.

So please, square that circle for us.

You're incorrect.

QuoteI suspect that when you posted the poll you really did think that increasing marginal rates would create more tax revenue.  But it isnt so simplistically true.

Right. I also believe that the rest of the world is a Utopian socialist society. ;)

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

I like that. It's a win for both sides.

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

Doesn't that encourage corporate perks (use of the company jet, expensing vacations) over monetary or investment compensation?

I kind of agree with Meri, but I'd do it by removing a lot of deductions. I think there's a problem with tax being something other people pay (and with some benefits of government being seen as something other people receive).

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
There's a major branding issue going on. Those opposed see it as "socialism", and that's what's beat into the public eye. But not all socialism is bad, and when broken down and asked as individual questions, most Americans want those systems in place. I can't see having those things without severe cuts and a severe tax hike.

Those who are opposed can also be opposed for the very good reason that without tax reform, increasing the marginal rate for all would be an incredibly regressive tax move as only the middle and lower income tax payors would actually pay more tax.

And by the way.  All socialism is bad unless you are ascribing a different meaning to the word.  I dont think you would ever want the state to control all the means of production.   That was tried.  It doesnt work.  I think what you have in mind are social democratic principles.

Languish. We need a simple, fair and workable tax code. Discuss.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
I kind of agree with Meri, but I'd do it by removing a lot of deductions. I think there's a problem with tax being something other people pay (and with some benefits of government being seen as something other people receive).

The problem is that with a lot of entitlement programs that is true.  It isnt an issue with the tax code it is a realization that helping the vulnerable in society helps all society.  Meri's point is more that people need to pay for what they recieve which is in a lot of ways the polar opposite of good public policy.  Those who need government services are the least able to pay for them and making them pay more would have the harmful effect of forcing more to seek those government services.

But I think the problem is if you have a welfare state that's heavily targeted at those most in need it becomes a welfare state that's easy to cut. It's for other people - and I think in many countries rhetoric about it can become racially charged. Obviously lots of welfare is going to go to those who need it and should be targeted: the unemployed, the seriously disabled, the poorest. But I think there's an advantage to some universal welfare provision: pension, healthcare, child benefit and childcare for example. The advantage is that it keeps middle-class and even some rich people involved in the welfare system. It isn't something 'for other people' that you don't have to worry about.

And the reverse works for taxes. If 47% of people aren't paying income tax that's a problem - and it's one that happened in Ireland - initially just because it's a very narrow tax base. Secondly I think there's a mirror image problem if tax rises become something that affects other people.

I mean that's a problem I have with Democrats. I often hear them calling for tax rises on the rich and it doesn't seem to be linked to spending, or to reducing the deficit, or to anything in particular. It just seems like a sort of rootless desire to tax someone else (the rich) more.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:37:39 PM
Meri, think about the simplistic answers you posted.  "Yes, I am in favour of a tax hike because we need more tax revenue".  Your approach is overly simplistic because it ignores the issue of tax avoidance which you say you understand.

So please, square that circle for us.

I suspect that when you posted the poll you really did think that increasing marginal rates would create more tax revenue.  But it isnt so simplistically true.

There is such a thing as being too sophisticated.
Increasing marginal rates will increase tax revenue.  One can question how much but not whether.  However you draw you Laffer curve, the US is very safely on the positively sloped side of it.  And tax avoidance techniques, while legion, are neither complete nor without cost. 

ROTW- Don't Care. That being said da Feds don't strike me as people who should necessarily be trusted with more money given how they manage what they get; you can't even be sure on any given day if the US is open or not.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:37:39 PM
Meri, think about the simplistic answers you posted.  "Yes, I am in favour of a tax hike because we need more tax revenue".  Your approach is overly simplistic because it ignores the issue of tax avoidance which you say you understand.

So please, square that circle for us.

I suspect that when you posted the poll you really did think that increasing marginal rates would create more tax revenue.  But it isnt so simplistically true.

There is such a thing as being too sophisticated.

Yup, that's CC's problem.

Quote from: frunk on October 23, 2013, 01:53:02 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

Doesn't that encourage corporate perks (use of the company jet, expensing vacations) over monetary or investment compensation?

Yes, this obviously requires tight controls on embezzlement or hidden compensation.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
But I think the problem is if you have a welfare state that's heavily targeted at those most in need it becomes a welfare state that's easy to cut. It's for other people - and I think in many countries rhetoric about it can become racially charged. Obviously lots of welfare is going to go to those who need it and should be targeted: the unemployed, the seriously disabled, the poorest. But I think there's an advantage to some universal welfare provision: pension, healthcare, child benefit and childcare for example. The advantage is that it keeps middle-class and even some rich people involved in the welfare system. It isn't something 'for other people' that you don't have to worry about.

And the reverse works for taxes. If 47% of people aren't paying income tax that's a problem - and it's one that happened in Ireland - initially just because it's a very narrow tax base. Secondly I think there's a mirror image problem if tax rises become something that affects other people.

I mean that's a problem I have with Democrats. I often hear them calling for tax rises on the rich and it doesn't seem to be linked to spending, or to reducing the deficit, or to anything in particular. It just seems like a sort of rootless desire to tax someone else (the rich) more.

Agreed.  Calling for tax increases on the rich is silly rhetoric.  That is why I object to simplistic discussions about tax rates.  The issue is tax avoidance not tax rates.  As a very simple example many professionals can and do create corporations from which they pay themselves minimal salaries and take money in the form of dividends and pay for things as corporate expenses so they limit the amount of after tax money they need to spend.

That is why I made the point early on that the problem is that most people dont understand the complexities of tax codes and how they are used and frankly abused to avoid paying tax.  If that is not addressed first then I suspect raising tax rates will cause a bigger backlash than the one you fear.

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 23, 2013, 02:00:49 PM
Languish. We need a simple, fair and workable tax code. Discuss.

Extreme hypothecation, once a year Seigy has to drive over to Mrs Cohens in West Palm Beach to collect $250 to buy his new entrenching tool.

Increasing revenue without a regard to tax incidence is not wise policy. Equating tax rate increases with revenue is also a bit simplistic. We obviously need more revenue as a % of GDP, and we need less spending as a % of GDP. Unless you're a Krugman/imbecile type that believes we just need lots more spending.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:37:39 PM
Meri, think about the simplistic answers you posted.  "Yes, I am in favour of a tax hike because we need more tax revenue".  Your approach is overly simplistic because it ignores the issue of tax avoidance which you say you understand.

So please, square that circle for us.

I suspect that when you posted the poll you really did think that increasing marginal rates would create more tax revenue.  But it isnt so simplistically true.

There is such a thing as being too sophisticated.
Increasing marginal rates will increase tax revenue.  One can question how much but not whether.  However you draw you Laffer curve, the US is very safely on the positively sloped side of it.  And tax avoidance techniques, while legion, are neither complete nor without cost.

If you are prepared to accept the regressive nature of such a thing then fine.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:01:01 PM
The problem is that with a lot of entitlement programs that is true.  It isnt an issue with the tax code it is a realization that helping the vulnerable in society helps all society.  Meri's point is more that people need to pay for what they recieve which is in a lot of ways the polar opposite of good public policy.  Those who need government services are the least able to pay for them and making them pay more would have the harmful effect of forcing more to seek those government services.

There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
But I think the problem is if you have a welfare state that's heavily targeted at those most in need it becomes a welfare state that's easy to cut. It's for other people - and I think in many countries rhetoric about it can become racially charged. Obviously lots of welfare is going to go to those who need it and should be targeted: the unemployed, the seriously disabled, the poorest.

So what you are talking about is increasing the tax burden on the working class/lower middle classes.
But this is the very class of people that has been squeezed the most over the last 30 years and seen their incomes stagnate or even decline.  "Base broadening" is just a euphemism for pushing their after tax incomes down even further.
I think for the US c. 2013 that is a very hard bill to sell.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:18:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:01:01 PM
The problem is that with a lot of entitlement programs that is true.  It isnt an issue with the tax code it is a realization that helping the vulnerable in society helps all society.  Meri's point is more that people need to pay for what they recieve which is in a lot of ways the polar opposite of good public policy.  Those who need government services are the least able to pay for them and making them pay more would have the harmful effect of forcing more to seek those government services.

There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance. 

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

I agree, but we have to admit it's not the most efficient way of spending money.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
But I think the problem is if you have a welfare state that's heavily targeted at those most in need it becomes a welfare state that's easy to cut. It's for other people - and I think in many countries rhetoric about it can become racially charged. Obviously lots of welfare is going to go to those who need it and should be targeted: the unemployed, the seriously disabled, the poorest. But I think there's an advantage to some universal welfare provision: pension, healthcare, child benefit and childcare for example. The advantage is that it keeps middle-class and even some rich people involved in the welfare system. It isn't something 'for other people' that you don't have to worry about.

And the reverse works for taxes. If 47% of people aren't paying income tax that's a problem - and it's one that happened in Ireland - initially just because it's a very narrow tax base. Secondly I think there's a mirror image problem if tax rises become something that affects other people.

I mean that's a problem I have with Democrats. I often hear them calling for tax rises on the rich and it doesn't seem to be linked to spending, or to reducing the deficit, or to anything in particular. It just seems like a sort of rootless desire to tax someone else (the rich) more.

Exactly. Everyone has to buy into the system, and the only way that will work is if there's a carrot for everyone.

Reform is a given, imo. No one argues that, so I didn't bother to put it into the poll.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 02:19:50 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
But I think the problem is if you have a welfare state that's heavily targeted at those most in need it becomes a welfare state that's easy to cut. It's for other people - and I think in many countries rhetoric about it can become racially charged. Obviously lots of welfare is going to go to those who need it and should be targeted: the unemployed, the seriously disabled, the poorest.

So what you are talking about is increasing the tax burden on the working class/lower middle classes.
But this is the very class of people that has been squeezed the most over the last 30 years and seen their incomes stagnate or even decline.  "Base broadening" is just a euphemism for pushing their after tax incomes down even further.
I think for the US c. 2013 that is a very hard bill to sell.

So you want to see income inequality reduced?

Quote from: DGuller on October 23, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the investment income taxation.  Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely, but capital gains and dividend income need to be taxed as regular income.

Agreed.  The current system is more than asinine, its insane.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

:huh:

Canada has universal healthcare. It has a pension system in place. It has a good infrastructure, and a decent military. Which "entitlement programs" that I mentioned did you cut?

Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2013, 02:23:01 PM
So you want to see income inequality reduced?

Ideally yes, but certainly I wouldn't rush to make changes that exacerbate the problem.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:24:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

:huh:

Canada has universal healthcare. It has a pension system in place. It has a good infrastructure, and a decent military. Which "entitlement programs" that I mentioned did you cut?

:huh:

Did you even read/understand my post.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 02:19:50 PM
So what you are talking about is increasing the tax burden on the working class/lower middle classes.
But this is the very class of people that has been squeezed the most over the last 30 years and seen their incomes stagnate or even decline.  "Base broadening" is just a euphemism for pushing their after tax incomes down even further.
I think for the US c. 2013 that is a very hard bill to sell.

Yeah. I mean in the UK I actually think part of the problem is that we sort-of nationalised payrises for many low-income workers.

The minimum wage didn't increase significantly and neither did average wages. But the government provided a lot of different tax credits and so on (and cheap credit) filled the gap. Personally I think that's a problem and I would rather see those tax credits abolished, corporation tax cut and the minimum wage raised significantly because I think for lower-paid workers there's been a break between earnings and economic performance which government's possibly exacerbated by treating the symptom. I'd rather see actually wage increases.

So it shouldn't go on its own but I'd like to base broadening and policies to increase wages.

But I think there's a fundamental problem with a tax system that doesn't include around half the population.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:27:44 PM
But I think there's a fundamental problem with a tax system that doesn't include around half the population.

Agreed but that is more a symptom of a dysfunctional economy  than a dysfunctional tax code.  Taxing people more on meagre earnings isnt that answer.  Partuclarly since those are the people who do not have the ability to legally avoid the tax.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 02:19:50 PM
So what you are talking about is increasing the tax burden on the working class/lower middle classes.
But this is the very class of people that has been squeezed the most over the last 30 years and seen their incomes stagnate or even decline.  "Base broadening" is just a euphemism for pushing their after tax incomes down even further.
I think for the US c. 2013 that is a very hard bill to sell.

I think a slight increase for this group is necessary to get them on that side of things. Not enough to hurt them, but enough to make them feel "part of the plan". A graduated rate increase getting larger as you earn more income makes the most sense.

Right now, if you don't make much money, the government actually pays you.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:25:46 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:24:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

:huh:

Canada has universal healthcare. It has a pension system in place. It has a good infrastructure, and a decent military. Which "entitlement programs" that I mentioned did you cut?

:huh:

Did you even read/understand my post.

Yes. I'm trying to figure out what you meant by the unbolded part.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:27:44 PM
Yeah. I mean in the UK I actually think part of the problem is that we sort-of nationalised payrises for many low-income workers.

The minimum wage didn't increase significantly and neither did average wages. But the government provided a lot of different tax credits and so on (and cheap credit) filled the gap. Personally I think that's a problem and I would rather see those tax credits abolished, corporation tax cut and the minimum wage raised significantly because I think for lower-paid workers there's been a break between earnings and economic performance which government's possibly exacerbated by treating the symptom. I'd rather see actually wage increases.

So it shouldn't go on its own but I'd like to base broadening and policies to increase wages.

But I think there's a fundamental problem with a tax system that doesn't include around half the population.

:yes:

Exempt the first $15,000 of wages from payroll tax, and raise the max level to $160,000.

Then, eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction on anything but primary residence, and cap at $500,000 of debt jointly, or $250,000 filing separately (half of current levels), and eliminate it for home equity loans. Primary residence to be defined as the house that establishes your state domicile.

And then it gets much more complicated, and I don't have any further ideas.  So yeah, this shit is hard.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:36:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:25:46 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:24:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

:huh:

Canada has universal healthcare. It has a pension system in place. It has a good infrastructure, and a decent military. Which "entitlement programs" that I mentioned did you cut?

:huh:

Did you even read/understand my post.

Yes. I'm trying to figure out what you meant by the unbolded part.

So why did you use healthcare as an example :hmm:

Anyway, your lack of reading comprehension aside.  Canada has means tested its entitlement programs for years.  If people earn enough money so that they do not require the assistance of an entitlement program those benefits are either not given or are clawed back.

It makes no sense for a middle income earner to subsidize me through any entitlement program.  I would much rather see that money go to where it is needed.

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Exempt the first $15,000 of wages from payroll tax, and raise the max level to $160,000.

Then, eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction on anything but primary residence, and cap at $500,000 of debt jointly, or $250,000 filing separately (half of current levels), and eliminate it for home equity loans. Primary residence to be defined as the house that establishes your state domicile.

And then it gets much more complicated, and I don't have any further ideas.  So yeah, this shit is hard.

:lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:42:10 PM
If people earn enough money so that they do not require the assistance of an entitlement program those benefits are either not given or are clawed back.

It makes no sense for a middle income earner to subsidize me through any entitlement program.  I would much rather see that money go to where it is needed.

I'm still confused. If you don't need any of the entitlement programs, why would you be getting any?

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:44:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:42:10 PM
If people earn enough money so that they do not require the assistance of an entitlement program those benefits are either not given or are clawed back.

It makes no sense for a middle income earner to subsidize me through any entitlement program.  I would much rather see that money go to where it is needed.

I'm still confused. If you don't need any of the entitlement programs, why would you be getting any?

Yes you are confused.  You made an argument for universal programs.  I said they make no sense with one exception.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:47:10 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:44:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:42:10 PM
If people earn enough money so that they do not require the assistance of an entitlement program those benefits are either not given or are clawed back.

It makes no sense for a middle income earner to subsidize me through any entitlement program.  I would much rather see that money go to where it is needed.

I'm still confused. If you don't need any of the entitlement programs, why would you be getting any?

Yes you are confused.  You made an argument for universal programs.  I said they make no sense with one exception.

Hmm... Not what I'm asking.

You said:

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

Which entitlement programs are you talking about here?

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Exempt the first $15,000 of wages from payroll tax, and raise the max level to $160,000.

Then, eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction on anything but primary residence, and cap at $500,000 of debt jointly, or $250,000 filing separately (half of current levels), and eliminate it for home equity loans. Primary residence to be defined as the house that establishes your state domicile.

And then it gets much more complicated, and I don't have any further ideas.  So yeah, this shit is hard.

Good start.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
Which entitlement programs are you talking about here?

All of them except the ones that fall within the expection I have now explained twice.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
All of them except the ones that fall within the expection I have now explained twice.

Which entitlements, specifically, were done away with 20 years ago?

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Exempt the first $15,000 of wages from payroll tax, and raise the max level to $160,000.

Then, eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction on anything but primary residence, and cap at $500,000 of debt jointly, or $250,000 filing separately (half of current levels), and eliminate it for home equity loans. Primary residence to be defined as the house that establishes your state domicile.

And then it gets much more complicated, and I don't have any further ideas.  So yeah, this shit is hard.

That's a pretty good start, actually.

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Exempt the first $15,000 of wages from payroll tax, and raise the max level to $160,000.

Then, eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction on anything but primary residence, and cap at $500,000 of debt jointly, or $250,000 filing separately (half of current levels), and eliminate it for home equity loans. Primary residence to be defined as the house that establishes your state domicile.

And then it gets much more complicated, and I don't have any further ideas.  So yeah, this shit is hard.

How about phasing out the mortgage interest deduction entirely?  I've often read it is horribly distortive because of the huge incentive it gives to home ownership.

Enslave Mexico. Able bodied to the fields, the rest sold to Europeans as horsemeat.

Rinse and repeat as needed with the rest of the beaners.

Profit!

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 03:36:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
All of them except the ones that fall within the expection I have now explained twice.

Which entitlements, specifically, were done away with 20 years ago?

Specifically no entitlements were "done away with".  Speficially the entitlement programs that have been means tested is too long for me to bother listing for you since you still seem to fail to get the point anyway.

 :lol:

So you don't know.

Quote from: Maximus on October 23, 2013, 03:56:16 PM
:lol:

So you don't know.

You can be a real fuck.  You know what the answer is, unless you were completely daft before you left and still you wallow in her ignorance. Well done.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:50:26 PM
Specifically no entitlements were "done away with".  Speficially the entitlement programs that have been means tested is too long for me to bother listing for you since you still seem to fail to get the point anyway.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to, but you're not being very helpful.

You said:

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

in response to my post:

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

You're right. I didn't get your point, which is why I kept asking clarifying questions. Since you seem to not want to answer them, I'll put it down to "not worth worrying about" and move on. :)

Quote from: 11B4V on October 23, 2013, 11:45:34 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
Raise 'em to the roof.

Yea, the forty seven percenters need their hand outs.

It'd be a lot easier for you to post faster if you skipped your little code words and just typed "blacks".

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 03:58:36 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on October 23, 2013, 11:45:34 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
Raise 'em to the roof.

Yea, the forty seven percenters need their hand outs.

It'd be a lot easier for you to post faster if you skipped your little code words and just typed "blacks".

I'm equal oppurtunity when it comes to the forty seven percenters.  :P

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:57:17 PM
You can be a real fuck.  You know what the answer is, unless you were completely daft before you left and still you wallow in her ignorance. Well done.

No, I was honestly curious to know what you meant by "entitlements".

Now I am also curious to know why you are so desperately trying to avoid naming one.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2013, 01:19:03 PM
Simplistic understanding of tax policy by someone who is a proven intellectual light weight, not too surprising.

:rolleyes:

As if the intricacies of the tax code in the US hasn't been discussed ad nausea here. I assumed that you "intellectual giants" would be able to include that in your voting. I didn't realize that it was beyond you to do so.

Otto married above his station.  It doesn't get much more intellectually gigantic than that.

I know there aren't a lot of votes on here, but I still think it's pretty cool that 77% of American Languishites think taxes should increase in some fashion or other. I wonder if as many would think that the cuts going on right now should also be kept as-is.

Meri, I will try this one more time.  I am not sure why since your husband could easily explain it to you and so I assume you and he are just be assholes.  But for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested.

Once upon a time there was a wonder land called Canada.  In this wonderful land universality of all social programs was the rule.  Then one day the big bad deficit came and ate away at the ability of the government to fund universal programs.  All the people of Canada got together to talk about how to fight the big bad deficit and they decided that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to give the richest man in the village the same benefits as the poorest man.  Everyone nodded in sage agreement and so it was that only the people that fell below a means tested income level recieved full benefits for things like Old Age Assistance payments, family assistance payments, rental assistance programs, etc etc etc. 

Then one day some bright bulb living in the US thought it would be a good idea to have universal entitlement programs.  One of the wise Canadians tried to show her the error of her ways.  But she was daft.

The End.

Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Eat me, food stamps-poor work ethic-welfare-entitlement society-blah people-47 percent-Kenyan Muslim hater.

See, so much typing to avoid what you crackers are really always trying to say.

Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 04:07:04 PM
Meri, I will try this one more time.  I am not sure why since your husband could easily explain it to you and so I assume you and he are just be assholes.  But for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested.

:huh:

We're both at work, several miles away from each other. On top of that, you're the one that made the point. Why should he explain it to me? If that makes us assholes, well, okay. I guess I'm okay with that.

QuoteOnce upon a time there was a wonder land called Canada.  In this wonderful land universality of all social programs was the rule.  Then one day the big bad deficit came and ate away at the ability of the government to fund universal programs.  All the people of Canada got together to talk about how to fight the big bad deficit and they decided that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to give the richest man in the village the same benefits as the poorest man.  Everyone nodded in sage agreement and so it was that only the people that fell below a means tested income level recieved full benefits for things like Old Age Assistance payments, family assistance payments, rental assistance programs, etc etc etc. 

Then one day some bright bulb living in the US thought it would be a good idea to have universal entitlement programs.  One of the wise Canadians tried to show her the error of her ways.  But she was daft.

The End.

How is this different from what the US does? Or are you talking about just the Social Security program?

I am done.

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 04:11:36 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Don't worry;  I cry for you. 

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1810367_md.jpg&hash=262794e740c5dba68111e44a8a60a65492804fa3)

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 04:15:58 PM
I am done.

:huh:

I guess maybe you're not understanding me, rather than the other way around.

I never suggested Universal Entitlement Programs like subsidization of living expenses, etc. I talked about Universal Healthcare, infrastructures, pension. You know, the same stuff that you do in Canada. Medicaid, funding for the poor, that kind of thing isn't what I meant by that. Maybe that wasn't clear by this part:

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
I disagree. I think a nominal increase on the middle class is a good idea. Not for the cash generated, but more for the idea that they are a part of the process that is giving them health insurance, a military, a decent infrastructure, and a retirement option.

I think that you misunderstood that I was carrying that idea forward with this quote:

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

I mean, I can see where the disconnect happened. You mistook the second quote to mean everything, though I'd clearly said only the things in the first quote. You know, those same things that you have in Canada that are universal benefits paid for by tax money.

Simple misunderstanding, but I think we've gotten it all cleared up now. :)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 04:11:36 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Don't worry;  I cry for you. 

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1810367_md.jpg&hash=262794e740c5dba68111e44a8a60a65492804fa3)

:lol:

 :D

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 04:11:36 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy :)

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Don't worry;  I cry for you. 

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1810367_md.jpg&hash=262794e740c5dba68111e44a8a60a65492804fa3)

Why you got your nasty ol' face all up in mine?

I'm conflicted. I'm in the picture, but I'm black. I mean not even garbon want to be black :( :P

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 04:26:27 PM

Simple misunderstanding, but I think we've gotten it all cleared up now. :)

I thought CC was saying Canada didn't have government health care. :blink:

CC was saying everybody used to get free money, then they only gave it to poor people.

I think we should:

Eliminate all deductions, including home mortgage and health insurance.  Keep the standard deduction.

Eliminate payroll taxes.  Raise everyone's marginal tax rate to the Clinton rates, maybe adjust up from there to compensate for lost payroll taxes.

Means test Social Security and Medicare.  Private, mandatory retirement accounts.

Tax dividends and interest as income.  Tax *real* capital gains as income.

Reduce corporate taxes to something approaching the world average.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 04:15:58 PM
I am done.

Smartest thing you've said in the discussion.  Just move on.

In the US when we talk about "universal entitlement programs" we are really only talking about 2 things.  Social security and medicare. 
On a macro level, SS and Medicare basically do the same thing - namely take some money from people under 65 and give it people over 65.
Of course everyone hopes to reach the age of 65, and everyone who reaches 65 and collects evenutally keels over and (eventually and most of the time) leaves their assets to people under 65.
Looked at that way it is kind of wash - people who die young and whose parents die young kind of get screwed and there is a rich --> working poor subsidy built in (not exactly a huge screaming problem IMO especially given the regressive nature of the tax used to fund it). otherwise not such a big deal.

Microeconomically however it is kind of crappy, because the transfer is accompanied by a corresponding tax on labor, which is not hugely desirable if as a country you value things like having people employed over having them unemployed. 

On SS - going to means testing and mandatory private accounts as Yi suggests is tempting but involves either putting a good amount of faith in the public spritedness and fundamental decency of the private wealth management industry or a crapton of regulation.  One advantage of SS as a program is that it is pretty simple to administer - you need a system to perform relatively simple benefit calculations and cut checks.

otherwise the Yi proposal above is pretty solid.

Medicare of course is a whole another can of worms which could be best solved the way most everyone else in the world does it - some variant on single payer.  But that ain't going to happen here so we are just screwed.

There's also a built-in subsidy from single to married earners.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2013, 05:49:59 PM
CC was saying everybody used to get free money, then they only gave it to poor people.

I think we should:

Eliminate all deductions, including home mortgage and health insurance.  Keep the standard deduction.

Eliminate payroll taxes.  Raise everyone's marginal tax rate to the Clinton rates, maybe adjust up from there to compensate for lost payroll taxes.

Means test Social Security and Medicare.  Private, mandatory retirement accounts.

Tax dividends and interest as income.  Tax *real* capital gains as income.

Reduce corporate taxes to something approaching the world average.

If you eliminate payroll taxes, how are taxes paid?

Otherwise, I agree with most of what you have here.

I believe payroll taxes are something a business pays, not the personal income tax.

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 07:51:13 PM
If you eliminate payroll taxes, how are taxes paid?

"Payroll taxes" are FICA and FUTA, SS and Medicare taxes.  As distinct from income tax.

Wimmenz :rolleyes:

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
Why you got your nasty ol' face all up in mine?

One love, dawg.  :peace:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2013, 08:17:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
Why you got your nasty ol' face all up in mine?

One love, dawg.  :peace:

Get a tic tac. <_<

Quote from: sbr on October 23, 2013, 07:53:37 PM
I believe payroll taxes are something a business pays, not the personal income tax.

Erroneous. Half of payroll tax is employer paid, half employee paid. Currently capped at first $110k.

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 08:35:47 PM
Erroneous. Half of payroll tax is employer paid, half employee paid. Currently capped at first $110k.

I believe the the cap was lifted on the Medicare portion to finance half of Obamacare. :nerd:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2013, 08:37:37 PM

Quote from: Scipio on October 23, 2013, 08:35:47 PM
Erroneous. Half of payroll tax is employer paid, half employee paid. Currently capped at first $110k.

I believe the the cap was lifted on the Medicare portion to finance half of Obamacare. :nerd:

Medicare cap was lifted a long time ago, before Obama.

 :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2013, 07:59:26 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2013, 07:51:13 PM
If you eliminate payroll taxes, how are taxes paid?

"Payroll taxes" are FICA and FUTA, SS and Medicare taxes.  As distinct from income tax.

Yeah, as soon as I sent that I realized that I'd mixed them up. But I was making more ginger ale and decided that I didn't care enough to go back to the computer to correct it. :P

Ideally, I'd like to see a simplified personal income tax structure set up where everyone has a $50,000 personal exemption and that's it--no other deductions, exemptions, or credits.  Then tax everything over that $50,000 limit at a flat rate of about 33% (except build in a little bit of progressetivity at the low end so f.e. a guy making $500 over the limit isn't worse off than a guy $500 under the limit).  I think that even with that generous exemption, the elimination of other write-offs would actually lead to the feds taking in more in personal income tax revenue than the do now--if not, that 33% is negotiable. 

Of course, there won't be any negotiation about the rate, because that plan doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting enacted.

Lots of you guys seem to be able to come up with way better ideas than 99% of Congress ever does. Funny, that.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2013, 11:34:02 PM
Lots of you guys seem to be able to come up with way better ideas than 99% of Congress ever does. Funny, that.

To be fair, we don't have to concern ourselves with what can satisfy enough of the powerful interests, as well as an intractable group of anarchist saboteurs.

I support a Buffett-style approach.

Keep everything else the same, but tax all income at the marginal tax rates and not some special rate for every dollar over $1m. Additionally there should be another tax bracket that starts at $1m and is a higher amount, and another that starts at $10m and would be around 45%-50%. I also believe tax-exempt municipal bonds are actually bad as a public policy tool and should be phased out.

Finally, I'd also say that any individual with under $250,000 in income or any household under $400,000 or so, pays 0% tax on capital gains/dividends. Anyone who isn't actually rich generates only a paltry amount of capital gains/dividend income, and we should let people in the upper middle class and down invest/save without having to deal with the tax hassle. Especially since we're often talking about a couple hundred bucks a year in dividends/cap gains.