Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[infinite monkey]

Stop deductions for popping out kids. Zero tax liability? Fine. Negative 3000 dollars tax liability? No.

Problem solved.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Stop deductions for popping out kids. Zero tax liability? Fine. Negative 3000 dollars tax liability? No.

Problem solved.

I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.

I understand the ideology of wanting to tax everyone equally, but taxing those on the margin at the same rate as those at the top just doesnt make economic sense to me. Again, taxpayers will end up paying more as those on the margin are forced to turn to other programs just to survive.

As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money. My problem is we seem to have this misguided idea that we should develop a giant system of all the things we want to do and then go taxing to try to pay for it all. Try doing that in your own life. Get the house, car, clothes, education, meal plans, medical care, retirement, toys, and while you're at it adopt a few of your neighbors needs as your own... then go tell your boss how much he needs to pay you. Let me know how that works for you.


F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush. Design programs influenced by politicians and lobbiests are full of fluff and more often than not do not turn out the desired products. It should not take 15 + years to design a generation of fighters, armored vehicles, or body armor. Then again, the different services don't necessarily need individual camouflage patterns, and they certainly don't need to change their uniform designs every 24-36 months with a 5-7 year testing period beforehand.

Spexx, I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply. Gutting R&D is a major cut in the military budget, withdrawing troops and closing bases around the world are major cuts. Fielding the best troops in the world with the best equipment in the world is possible if we quit trying to be the world's police force and focus on crafting a force to defend our country. A force capable of flat out destroying any nation or organization that chooses to provoke a response is what we should be aiming for. The military should be a hammer, not a swiss army knife.

Foreign aid? They all say we don't do enough anyway, so why bother? Cut the aid right now, toss the UN out on their asses and quit funding their corruption. Even if it's only 1% of GDP, that equals a lot of dollars that could be used to solve our own problems.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply.

This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush.

By my observation, something like only one in four DoD contracts actually work. However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem. The problem is directly traceable to those who authorize spending by coming from the business schools rather than from where the work gets done.

The problem is not too much money. The problem are too many experts without fundamental knowledge making decisions. That results in more layers of bureaucracy and more waste. The solution was well defined by W E Deming. It starts by addressing the only reason for so many DoD contracts that have no purpose. Management.

Only the most naive solve problems by using cost controls. Cost controls always increase costs. Solution always come from those who know how the work gets done. But as business school types promote more of their own, then costs increase.

No different than in GM where top management could not even drive a car. So of course Rick Wagoner said GM's only problem was the economy. He was just as dumb as the executives who approve DoD R&D without even a science degree.

Need we again cite Carly Fiorina as the only reason for HP's problems back then? A history major from Stamford and a salesman for Lucent. Therefore she too would only harm an R&D company. And then in the meeting I attended, she said she would solve these problems with better costs controls and a new accounting system. Could she be any dumber? Her solution was also costs controls. Solve problems by controlling spending rather than learn about the product.

How to fix our problems? Every Senator and Congressman must fill out his own tax returns by hand and without assistance. Currently tax accountants do it for them because they do not even understand the tax laws they have created. Just like those who approve DoD spending, Rick Wagoner, and Carly Fiorina. Always go after the problem. Not its symptoms (ie cash flow).

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem.

Unless the problem is overspending.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Unless the problem is overspending.

extremist

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.
As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money.

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

The real tax rate (all state/federal taxes) for the top taxpayers is in the low 30% range....the lowest they have paid in 50 years.

I've not seen any example where your math works in real dollars in a real economy.

[Pete Zicato]

How about corporations, lookout?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

How about corporations, lookout?

There has to be a balance there and I couldn't begin to tell you what the percentage should be. (as I've also tried to be clear I don't know what the percentage should be for personal income)

I believe we should cut out sweetheart deals that pay companies to do business for a period of time while the profits go elsewhere. I also believe we have to be sensitive to the fact if we tax to heavily companies relocate their operations outside the country. Like the wealthy, businesses spend billions on armies of accoutants trying to milk the tax code for every penny. If the tax code is essentially (revenue - capital expenses) x X% = tax obligation I believe the companies will spend more in taxes but less in tax avoidance. There is a huge cost to tax avoidance and the regulation and audits are hugely expensive. I believe there is a point in there somewhere where the public coffers and the corporations would benefit. (just as I've said about the wealthy)

For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex. If we don't understand it then we need them. They get to keep using taxes to stir the idea of class warfare. We remain divided and they remain in Washington in their castles.

***
All that combined with massive cuts in spending (not for the sake of just accounting games but for the sake of acknowledging the government can't keep printing money and they can't keep funding every little boondoggle and pork barrel project someone wants) are needed if we are to keep this country afloat for years to come. A family can't survive for long by spending more than they make and neither can a country.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex.

That is a problem. However it is not the IRS that makes things complex. IRS only execute the laws. Laws that create 10,000+ pages. Nobody in the IRS can understand it. Congressmen cannot even understand their own taxes.

No different than a GM executive who does not even have a driver's license.

It is no longer a game when men who make the rules must also live by the consequences. Currently rule makers do not. Making them do their own taxes by hand would not solve the problem. But let them know how bad things really are.

Iacocca said he could make Chrysler more profitable by turning it into a finance company. Playing finance games was more profitable than being productive. Today it is even worse. Games created by Congress to both with spending and taxes. So, yes, that really is the problem. Not the taxes or spending. The people who continue to make these problems and who cannot do anything to solve them. People who do not even understand the consequences of their actions.

Spending and tax laws are not the problem. Those are only symptoms. We have a government now dominated by extremists. That means solutions - even eliminating a paper dollar bill - are almost impossible.

Who lost most in the last Congressional elections? Moderates lost by a landslide. Therein lays the loss of our best problem solvers.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.

Originally Posted by lookout123

I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is,

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