champu 1 #1 July 21, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/bipartisan-tax-plan-trims-mortgage-deduction-191345875.html QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — A new bipartisan plan to reduce government borrowing would target some of the most cherished tax breaks enjoyed by millions of families — those promoting health insurance, home ownership, charitable giving and retirement savings — in exchange for lowering overall tax rates for everyone. Obviously my ears perked up as health insurance, mortgage interest, donations, and 401(k) are some of my biggest tax deductions. There's not enough detail in the article regarding how these things might be affected but, if you read the whole thing, it sounds kinda goofy. Sounds like a bunch of people squeezing one of those balloon animal balloons and making fat parts and thin parts move around but not much else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #2 July 21, 2011 This is what right wingers refer to as "simplification." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 July 21, 2011 QuoteThis is what right wingers refer to as "simplification." seems like a pretty transparent transfer of tax burden from the extremely wealthy to everyone else. All of those listed tax benefits have more limited value to those in the top bracket, but a 6-12% income tax cut - huge! Quite different from the low capital gains rate, which benefits and encourages investment for all. But per the article, no actual details have been laid out, so it seems like an announcement without a proposal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 July 21, 2011 QuoteThis is what right wingers refer to as "simplification." Yes But what it means in the end is a great unknown. I listened to a few different interviews and they all (Senators) said there is not enough detail to know the true impact yet In principal howerver, I think there are some good ideas in their proposal"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis is what right wingers refer to as "simplification." seems like a pretty transparent transfer of tax burden from the extremely wealthy to everyone else. All of those listed tax benefits have more limited value to those in the top bracket, but a 6-12% income tax cut - huge! Quite different from the low capital gains rate, which benefits and encourages investment for all. But per the article, no actual details have been laid out, so it seems like an announcement without a proposal. There has never been much doubt that they will have to tax all. Despite the crap the dreamy posts, there is not enough money with the rich to dig us out of this And I agree, just what this proposal means is not known"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #6 July 21, 2011 The debt is going to be repaid with more than a pound of flesh from the ass of every middle class citizen. The rich are rich, and their overall standard of living will not be drastically impacted. The poor and lower class will continue to receive the benefits of the progressive tax system, and social welfare. The middle class will suffer a huge increase in tax burden. Cost of living is going to continue to rise. Living standards are going to go down drastically. The paychecks of the middle class are going to be wrung dry to pay for entitlements for the aging boomers, and the poor, all the while those same workers will never be able to receive the same level of benefits when they are older. We have been fucked by our elders, and by our government."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 July 21, 2011 QuoteThe debt is going to be repaid with more than a pound of flesh from the ass of every middle class citizen. The rich are rich, and their overall standard of living will not be drastically impacted. The poor and lower class will continue to receive the benefits of the progressive tax system, and social welfare. The middle class will suffer a huge increase in tax burden. Cost of living is going to continue to rise. Living standards are going to go down drastically. The paychecks of the middle class are going to be wrung dry to pay for entitlements for the aging boomers, and the poor, all the while those same workers will never be able to receive the same level of benefits when they are older. We have been fucked by our elders, and by our government. Agreed The middle class is where the bulk of the money is The rich arguement is nothing more than a distraction"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #8 July 21, 2011 QuoteThe rich are rich, and their overall standard of living will not be drastically impacted. except if we tax them properly - rather than squeezing the life out of the middle class... (the rich are only a minority after all)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #9 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe rich are rich, and their overall standard of living will not be drastically impacted. except if we tax them properly - rather than squeezing the life out of the middle class... (the rich are only a minority after all) Unfortunately I don't think that would work. You could tax the rich 99% on their income, corporations on 99% of the net income, and it wouldn't cover the gap. There is a difference between wealth and income."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #10 July 21, 2011 so you tax wealth (hey, how about an inheritance tax) - problem solved. this lot have the money they just don't want to use it for the benefit of all...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #11 July 21, 2011 Why wait for them to die. We can just nationalize all their wealth and give it to every one else. Imagine how great it would be if we could just take every ones wealth over a certain threshold. Then we could use it for all these great social programs. Spending wouldn't be a problem. Why worry about waste and graft. Thats the ticket! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #12 July 21, 2011 meanwhile the rich get richer and the middle class get poorer. of course the rich won't like being taxed properly - they'll kick up a stink as per usual. on the other hand it's got to be done so let's get on with it...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #13 July 21, 2011 Quote Quote The debt is going to be repaid with more than a pound of flesh from the ass of every middle class citizen. The rich are rich, and their overall standard of living will not be drastically impacted. The poor and lower class will continue to receive the benefits of the progressive tax system, and social welfare. The middle class will suffer a huge increase in tax burden. Cost of living is going to continue to rise. Living standards are going to go down drastically. The paychecks of the middle class are going to be wrung dry to pay for entitlements for the aging boomers, and the poor, all the while those same workers will never be able to receive the same level of benefits when they are older. We have been fucked by our elders, and by our government. Agreed The middle class is where the bulk of the money is The rich arguement is nothing more than a distraction Queue the Twilight Zone music.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #14 July 21, 2011 >The middle class is where the bulk of the money is ================================= July 30, 2009, 2:26 pm Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07 By CATHERINE RAMPELL The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service. This represents the second year in a row that the richest 1 percent paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent (not, however, the bottom 99 percent). This was noted in a blog post from the Tax Foundation, an organization that promotes lower tax rates. =================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #15 July 21, 2011 so the rich do have the money stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #16 July 21, 2011 >so the rich do have the money Hence their name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #17 July 21, 2011 Funny I didn't say the rich didn't have money, your suprised that we confirmed something that we all knew already? What I don't think is that a large tax increase on rich alone will cover the projected future spending on our interest obligation, and future expenditures on entitlements."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #18 July 21, 2011 well, if we start with a large tax increase on the rich (them having the money and all) we're a good way down the road to balancing the budget...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #19 July 21, 2011 QuoteFunny I didn't say the rich didn't have money, your suprised that we confirmed something that we all knew already? What I don't think is that a large tax increase on rich alone will cover the projected future spending on our interest obligation, and future expenditures on entitlements. Well some of us know who has the money.... others that live in some freakish Twilight Zone psuedo-reality.... not so much. It is going to take massive cuts in spending as well as a tax restructuring to dig us out of the deep hole the country is in. Cutting spending that actually does something to help the bulk of the poorest citizens is not something history will look lightly upon from a supposed great nation. The old adage... "a society is judged upon how it treats the least of its members" comes to mind. I guess all the religious "christian" nutbags on the far right do not really follow what their Lord taught. I am searching for a word here.. what is that kind of duplicity of thought called again?????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #20 July 21, 2011 I am trying to find some additional information but here is some stuff I found so far. Based on the 2006 census there were 2.2M households with annual income over 250K. The average annual income of this group was 448K. That would give you revenue of 1 trillion dollars a year if you taxed them at a 100% rate, excluding the impact of any tax shelters etc. You would only get your 1 trillion if you taxed ALL of that group at 250K. That means you are going to consider the double earner family in CA making 270K in CA as rich even though they currently live well but are far from ultra rich and they will get no money to live. This ignores the effect of income tax brackets as well. You would probably only get 100% tax on income over 250K, the first 250K would get taxed at lower rates/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#cite_note-US_Census_2006_Economic_Survey.2C_income_data-5 Even if this proposal has a nuetral impact on the economy, good luck on that one, it isn't going to get you there."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #21 July 21, 2011 Quote The old adage... "a society is judged upon how it treats the least of its members" comes to mind. Society, not government. If there were no government aid, there still is charities and nonprofits. Any of the above only treats poverty, it does not cure it.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #22 July 21, 2011 Quotewell, if we start with a large tax increase on the rich (them having the money and all) we're a good way down the road to balancing the budget... Can you quantify that statement with some actual numbers or projections? What tax rate do you suggest, what income brackets, what is your projected revenue increase."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #23 July 21, 2011 Quotebusiness groups have been frustrated with a sequence of three separate estate-tax laws starting in 2009, when the first $3.5 million of an individual’s estate passed to heirs tax-free before a 45 percent rate kicked in. The Congressional Research Service says using those parameters in 2011 would subject 0.25 percent of U.S. estates to any tax in 2011 and generate $18.1 billion in revenue. By contrast, a 55 percent top rate, with a $1 million exclusion, would affect 1.76 percent of estates and generate $34.4 billion in revenue, the CRS said. That’s enough to fund the departments of Labor and State. The Kyl-Lincoln approach would subject just 0.14 percent of estates to any tax and generate $11.2 billion, according to the CRS. The anti-tax groups say they will continue to pressure lawmakers for repeal. “What we would very much like to see is an extension of death taxes where they are right now, see an extension of the zero rate,” said Dick Patten, president of the group founded by Alabama lawyer Harold Apolinsky and funded heavily by investment banker Raymond Harbert, the son of a billionaire heiress. The group refers to the levy as the “death tax,” even though 99 percent of U.S. residents don’t accrue a large enough fortune in their lifetime to pay it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/return-of-estate-tax-looms-as-final-impediment-to-extending-bush-tax-cuts.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #24 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuotebusiness groups have been frustrated with a sequence of three separate estate-tax laws starting in 2009, when the first $3.5 million of an individual’s estate passed to heirs tax-free before a 45 percent rate kicked in. The Congressional Research Service says using those parameters in 2011 would subject 0.25 percent of U.S. estates to any tax in 2011 and generate $18.1 billion in revenue. By contrast, a 55 percent top rate, with a $1 million exclusion, would affect 1.76 percent of estates and generate $34.4 billion in revenue, the CRS said. That’s enough to fund the departments of Labor and State. The Kyl-Lincoln approach would subject just 0.14 percent of estates to any tax and generate $11.2 billion, according to the CRS. The anti-tax groups say they will continue to pressure lawmakers for repeal. “What we would very much like to see is an extension of death taxes where they are right now, see an extension of the zero rate,” said Dick Patten, president of the group founded by Alabama lawyer Harold Apolinsky and funded heavily by investment banker Raymond Harbert, the son of a billionaire heiress. The group refers to the levy as the “death tax,” even though 99 percent of U.S. residents don’t accrue a large enough fortune in their lifetime to pay it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/return-of-estate-tax-looms-as-final-impediment-to-extending-bush-tax-cuts.html 34 Billion in revenue, a change that would impact 1% of estates. And this will put a sizable dent in the debt how?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #25 July 21, 2011 that's 34 billion more than you've suggested so far...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
