Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[Undertoad]

Corporate tax loopholes for political $upport is driving politics the wrong way. As long as we're throwing shit out there, let's have zero corporate tax, zero personal income tax, and 20% federal sales tax or VAT. Leave in place capital gains, as a form of VAT on investments.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Corporate tax loopholes for political $upport is driving politics the wrong way. As long as we're throwing shit out there, let's have zero corporate tax, zero personal income tax, and 20% federal sales tax or VAT. Leave in place capital gains, as a form of VAT on investments.

What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.

On the positive side, everyone would have an incentive to save.

Both sides of the equation have to be dealt with to get our debt under control. Nobody is going to like what has to be done, so it is up to voters to elect adults and vote like adults even though our pet ideologies are violated.

Case in point. Pete's company had a stake in this but building stuff the Pentagon doesn't want isn't how you balance a budget. Defense contractors have been brilliant in spreading contracts out across congressional districts, an almost perfect scheme.

The bill takes a step toward reviving an extra engine for the next generation F-35 fighter plane despite objections from the administration and Gates that the engine is not needed.

The Pentagon recently notified General Electric/Rolls Royce that it had terminated its contract and work was stopped a month ago, saving $1 million a day. The company said last week it would spend its own money to build the engine.

The bill would force the Pentagon to reopen competition for the engine if defense officials have to ask Congress for more money so Pratt & Whitney can build the chosen design.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., called the effort a "back-door way" of getting the engine back in.

[glatt]

That GE/Rolls Royce engine for the strike fighter is a freaking vampire that will not die. It is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. Every congressperson who voted in favor of reviving it is working at odds with the American taxpayer.

Pratt and Whitney won the competition. They got the contract. The military does not want or need the extra engine. You see, they've already got one.

I'm not even convinced we need this new fighter at all, but if we are going to get it, at least do it in a smart way.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.

I think the uncomfortable feeling associated with the flat tax has something to do with the "marginal utility of the dollar" or the fact that a dollar for the worker living on a minum age has more value to him in terms of purchasing power than a dollar to the millionaire.

There is also a psychological barrier assoicated with the flat tax. One might tend to have second thoughts when faced with paying $1.40 (30 cent VAT and 10 cent state sales tax) for a product worth $1.00 that you dont experience when you are only paying $1.10 (along with the current income tax that you dont see on each purchase).

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I think the uncomfortable feeling associated with the flat tax has something to do with the "marginal utility of the dollar" or the fact that a dollar for the worker living on a minum age has more value to him in terms of purchasing power than a dollar to the millionaire.

There is also a psychological barrier assoicated with the flat tax. One might tend to have second thoughts when faced with paying $1.40 (30 cent VAT and 10 cent state sales tax) for a product worth $1.00 that you dont experience when you are only paying $1.10 (along with the current income tax that you dont see on each purchase).

I don't support a VAT because lower income households really do spend every dollar they earn and will be taxed on every dollar UNLESS we create more deductions, credits, and loopholes to help them out. More deductions, credits, and loopholes will be written by politicians and paid for by lobbiests. Who do you think they will really benefit.

I firmly support gutting the tax code. TW has the right idea when he says every politician should be able to complete their own tax forms. Interest on a owner occupied home should be deducted from gross income. After that a simple 1% up to $XX,000 and 20/25/30% across the board on every dollar beyond that. 1 form, done and dusted.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Interest on a owner occupied home should be deducted from gross income.

Just curious, why do you feel that mortgage interest should be treated differently from other expenses?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

... After that a simple 1% up to $XX,000 and 20/25/30% across the board on every dollar beyond that. 1 form, done and dusted.

Here's the problem as I see it. The ideology bumps up against reality.

Federal income taxes currently generate about $1.2 trillion in revenue (the rest comes from corporate taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, etc) for a $3 trillion budget and your proposal would reduce that revenue significantly and spending cuts would need to be much deeper (not just waste, fraud, redundancies, etc.) than the economy could bear or that the people would likely accept OR the rates would need to be higher than you suggest and middle class taxpayers would be adversely impacted much more than the wealthy.

It will have several other impacts as well.

State income taxes would likely increase to fund essential or beneficial programs that came under the federal knife.

And, by ending the deductions for charitable donations, there would be less incentive to make those donations, particularly among the wealthy, meaning that the charitable sector will also see less revenue and be unable to make up the difference resulting from those deep federal cuts.

Finally, the reason why every industrial economy in the world has a system of progressive taxation is simple and its not as a result of the influence of lobbyists or the taxing authority, but because it is the best system to fund government services and spread the cost so that no one is burdened with taxes beyond their means.

[lookout123]

The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I think you need to be specific. How much income and what tax rate, specifically?

Originally Posted by lookout123

The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.

Good answer lookout. That's the best possible answer at this juncture. No one knows what the expenses will be, nor what the revenue will be. Living within our means is the goal here, and I believe that should be undertaken from BOTH directions.

Related, but also bothering me---

I hear lots of conversations about taxes. And two very common themes are debt reduction and revenue neutrality. These two ideas are not interchangeable. They're different. And anyone, even Paul Ryan, who suggests that our debt reduction can be achieved by revenue neutral actions alone is wrong. Our government needs revenue. To suggest otherwise ridiculous. And our debt can not be retired without increasing that revenue.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.

Reminds me of this conversation, where you were a hammer.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=3...age#post386109

[lookout123]

I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.

Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.

Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.

Yeah, entirely different.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.

Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.

More name calling and ridicule. Again, everybody: this is why the politics forum gets ugly. Want it to stop? Tell LO to stop. Nip it in the bud.

[glatt]

Didn't you call him a hammer in the post just before that?