An idea for bipartisan tax reform

[LV426]

LOL, do a little research race baiter. Read a little. (i know, so much easier to call others racist and just be an overall P.O.S.)

Read bullshit? No thanks. That's what you're here for; to spread bullshit.

Meanwhile, there's not a single red state out there that doesn't rely on the welfare block grant to close its budget gaps from artificially-low tax rates.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm in favor of closing corporate loopholes,

Thinks corporations pay taxes.

but I don't see lowering overall taxation as a good path.

Of course you don't. You're economically illiterate and believe that we have a revenue problem in this country and that Government is entitled to our hard earned wealth.

In fact, I'd say we'd almost surely be better off with higher overall taxes.

Only brain dead idiots think that people are better off if Government steals more of their hard earned wealth. That is why you are economically illiterate.

If you look at the leading societies of the world, in terms of quality of life, they tend to have higher taxes than the US.

There's that moronic claim again; America leads ALL societies in the world. Too bad you're too uniformed to comprehend the OBVIOUS.

In wealthy nations, tax revenues range between about 25% and 50% of GDP, and the US is at the low end of that range.

The US is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet you dumb fuck.

That suggests there's more room for us to raise our taxes than to lower them, while preserving a good quality of life.

How does higher taxation equate to a better quality of life? Be specific.

After all, we have lots of examples of countries here in the real world that have higher effective taxes than us and a good quality of life, and almost no examples of countries with lower effective taxes and a good quality of life.

That depends on what your definition of quality is. Yet, with all your memes and false equivalencies, we just don't see people clamoring to get into those countries the same way they do here. Why do you think that is snowflake?

The same is true when it comes to the question of spending cuts. Sure, there are some areas where I think all reasonable people can agree we spend an absurd amount of money. Our military budget is vastly more than all our potential adversaries combined. We could save a whole lot there.

Yet it is a very small portion of the $4 trillion Federal Budget and one of the FEW things the Federal Budget pays for that is it's constitutional responsibility.

We could save more if all those better nations you boast about could pay for their own defense. But they can barely pay for all the social largess you think makes their lives so wonderful which is why they can afford to pay next to nothing for their defense.

We also blow a lot of money on the prison-industrial complex. And the whole "security state" apparatus, from theatrical bag-checking, to Big Brother surveillance programs, to pointless border barriers, is wasteful, and could be trimmed up a great deal. But, even with all that waste, our total spending is relatively low as a share of GDP compared to what's typical for wealthy nations. That suggests we probably have more room to increase it without hurting quality of life, whereas if we cut it down to still more spartan levels, we could quickly see diminishing returns.

What a pile of meaningless brain dead word salad. You really don't have the slightest clue of what you bloviate about.

 

[Truth Detector]

We'll see. The closest approximation we have for that kind of change was the period between 1933 and 1951 when the GOP was effectively defanged and we did a lot of wonderful things for the nation. But think what was needed to bring about that kind of elevation of political consciousness in this country. That generation that turned its back on the GOP only did so after seeing an utter failure of Republican leadership that puts the current situation in the shade. The three Republican administration that led to the Great Depression gave us widespread crushing poverty, bread-lines, Hoovervilles, etc. The 2008 catastrophe was a lesser version of that, and it wasn't even close to enough to render the GOP inoperative for a generation. I don't imagine Trump's going to do it.

More bullshit; but you have got shoveling shit down to a science. Yay you!

 

[cawacko]

If you think so, why would you want to drop it radically by replacing it with a flat tax?

I said it's healthy as in high, not that it's a good number. I'm all for eliminating deductions but it will never come to that and as a result we will continue to have crony capitalism.

 

[cawacko]

Read bullshit? No thanks. That's what you're here for; to spread bullshit.

Meanwhile, there's not a single red state out there that doesn't rely on the welfare block grant to close its budget gaps from artificially-low tax rates.

Funny you can't address the simple fact that certain states rely heavily on the very rich for their funding. Does that offend your racist sensibilities?

 

[LV426]

Funny you can't address the simple fact that certain states rely heavily on the very rich for their funding.

Your insistence that if a handful of them leave, the budgets get wrecked, is what I take issue with.

Does that offend your racist sensibilities?

You support Conservatism, yet I'm the racist? Whaaaaa?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Oneuli, you seem to be saying "not gonna happen" to the idea that MAJOR reform is going to happen...

...and I come down on the side of, "Oh, yes it is."

It has to happen.

"Not happen" results in the French solution of the late 18th Century...or the Russian solution of the early 20th.

I'd rather it not happen in either of those ways.

I suspect it is going to happen by having a kind of scrip take over for purchase of the necessities of life...and have money be used for everything that happens after that threshold. The scrip will be plentiful...enough so that everyone will have sufficient of the necessities...and probably some of the not so necessary.

I'm 82...I doubt I will see it. I suspect many people currently alive will. It will happen within a generation or two tops.

American conservatives of the type found here in JPP will make it a laborious transition.

 

[LV426]

Funny you can't address the simple fact that certain states rely heavily on the very rich for their funding.

And an even larger number of certain states rely on federal welfare for their funding.

So I guess we're even?

 

[Truth Detector]

That kind of tax would constitute a massive increase in effective tax rates on the middle class and poor, even as it amounted to a massive tax cut for the rich. That's a good idea if you think the pressing problem in America today is too little income inequality and wealth stratification. If you think life's gotten too darn rough on the rich and too cushy for the poor, then it's a great change. If, on the other hand, you think we're in the opposite situation, it'll make things worse.

Here's a way to think about the numbers.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

That's a bit dated, but take a look at 2015. As you can see, the average total federal tax rate for everyone (the effective federal tax rate) was 21.1%. So, if you could get perfect tax collection (no write-offs, no dodging) you'd need to set the rate at 21.1% to collect the same revenues. Now, look what that means for each group.

For those in the bottom 20% (the poor), it means their effective tax rate would be 14 times as high as now. For those in the next 20% (the lower-middle class), taxes would jump to over twice what they currently pay. For the next 20% (the middle-middle class), the tax hit would be 50% higher than it currently is. For the next 20% (the upper-middle class), it would still be a rise from 17.9% to 21.1%, which is an increase of about 18% in what their tax bill would be. So, there you have 80% of the population experiencing the change you're calling for as a giant tax hike.... a ruinously large one for at least 60%. Only the upper class would be better off.

For the top 1%-ers, though, it would be a huge windfall, dropping their effective tax rates from 33.3% to 21.1%, which is a decline of about 37% in what they'll owe. So, would you really support a 21.1% flat tax for everyone?

It makes sense the very rich keep pushing this notion of a Flat Tax. If you're Steve Forbes, handed a massive fortune by your father, it's a great idea. For the rest of us, though, it really sucks. The only way it wouldn't absolutely devestate the poor and middle class is to move to a more European-style government system, where the state provides enough of life's basics that it's not a great hardship for people to have little take-home pay (e.g., "free" healthcare, childcare, college, and heavily subsidized public transit, etc.)

That said, we could move to a progressive simplified tax -- that is, keep a progressive structure even as we eliminate most or all write-offs. The vast majority of complexity in the tax code has nothing to do with the brackets, so eliminating those doesn't really help anything. Rather, it's all the special rules to benefit politically useful constituencies (e.g., special tax rules to benefit veterans, farmers, small businesses, churches, and so on).

LIE and LAME. Most Flat Tax proposals [14.5% example) wouldn't kick on the first $50,000 of income. So let's examine how unfair it would be. Family of four earning $50K would pay ZERO. Family of Four earning $1 million would pay $140K.

Sound pretty fair to me. Family of four earning $100K would pay $7,250. Family of four earning $1 million, still paying $140K.

Moron.

 

[Truth Detector]

Three consecutive Republican administrations led us to that dark time.

LIE and LAME. Hey moron, what were the tax rates during that time?

 

[Truth Detector]

We'll see. For my own part, I don't think enough of the intelligence of the average voter to expect that. I think around 40% of Americans are authoritarian twits who will line up with the GOP no matter what.

Lying dishonest fool talking to Evince about intelligence.

 

[LV426]

American conservatives of the type found here in JPP will make it a laborious transition.

See, I disagree. I think Trump -if he runs in 2020- gets whalloped, losing states like Georgia and Arizona. I think we will see the same margins we saw in 2008.

Then every single Conservative on this board will disappear for a couple days, then reappear under brand new IDs that resume arguing for Conservatism.

This time, though, we smash the Trump/Bush-Off Machines before they have a chance to be turned on.

Red hats will disappear into the same attics where Klan hoods sit, collecting dust.

 

[Truth Detector]

He failed to implement the modernizing changes that prevented a repeat performance for so long after the New Deal. What was needed were more banking regulations, more economic regulations generally, and a stronger social safety net. Those Republicans effectively stood aside and let the financiers create a giant bubble, even while they failed to make contingencies for when it inevitably popped. They had a foolish belief in the invisible hand, and the nation paid dearly for that.

The Fed failed to rein in the banks while there was time. It also, in theory, could have acted more swiftly to ease money supply when the bubble burst, to prevent the subsequent vicious cycle from being as strong an as long. The absence of a lender of last resort meant that when credit markets seized, it was all downhill.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression

LIE and LAME. Race hustling regulations are the reason we had a mortgage implosion and stock market collapse.

What Caused the Mortgage Crisis?
https://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/what-caused-the-mortgage-crisis/
Who Was to Blame for the Subprime Crisis?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp
The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis
.......Why would banks make such risky loans? The answer is that the Clinton administration pressured the banks to help poor people become homeowners, a noble liberal idea. Also the Clinton Justice Department threatened banks with lawsuits and fines ($10,000 per application) for redlining (discrimination) if they did not make these loans. Also ACORN (Obama’s community service organization) was instrumental in providing borrowers and pressuring the banks to make these loans.

To allow Fannie Mae to make more loans, President Clinton also reduced Fannie Mae’s reserve requirement to 2.5%. That means it could purchase and/or guarantee $97.50 in mortgages for every $2.50 it had in equity to cover possible bad debts. If more than 2.5% of the loans go bad, the taxpayers (us) have to pay for them. That is what this bailout is all about. It is not the government paying the banks for the bad loans, it is us!!
https://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-cause-of-the-2008-financial-crisis/

Watch as Democrats attack the regulator and race hustle in the hearings in 2004 trying to get a handle on the impending crisis; yes the DEMOCRATS are the reason nothing was done folks:

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Hearings 2004

 

[Truth Detector]

You support Conservatism, yet I'm the racist? Whaaaaa?

The Party of the Jackass was the party of racism you ignorant dumb fuck.

 

[Truth Detector]

See, I disagree. I think Trump -if he runs in 2020- gets whalloped, losing states like Georgia and Arizona. I think we will see the same margins we saw in 2008.

Saved.

Then every single Conservative on this board will disappear for a couple days, then reappear under brand new IDs that resume arguing for Conservatism.

LIE and LAME. If Trump wins, every single liberal will disappear for a couple of days and then reappear under brand new IDs and resume claiming that Democrats won.

This time, though, we smash the Trump/Bush-Off Machines before they have a chance to be turned on.

You are a delusional little Nazi aren't you?

Red hats will disappear into the same attics where Klan hoods sit, collecting dust.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The historical brackets can be found here:

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

What's interesting is not just how high the top marginal rate was during our economic golden age, but also how high the rates were even on the middle class. For example, in 1963, the top bracket of families earning between $32,000 and $36,000 was 50%. That's about $266,000 in today's money -- not exactly wealthy. Back then, you paid your top dollar at 22% starting at just $4,000 in family income, which is just around $33,000 today. So even the lower-middle-class was paying at that level. By comparison, these days you'd have to earn $77,401 before you started paying 22%.

I knew that. For some reason leftists never want to bring back the entire tax code from then. They seem to only focus on that top rate. Is it ignorance on their part?

 

[Irish]

I'm in favor of closing corporate loopholes, but I don't see lowering overall taxation as a good path. In fact, I'd say we'd almost surely be better off with higher overall taxes. If you look at the leading societies of the world, in terms of quality of life, they tend to have higher taxes than the US. In wealthy nations, tax revenues range between about 25% and 50% of GDP, and the US is at the low end of that range. That suggests there's more room for us to raise our taxes than to lower them, while preserving a good quality of life. After all, we have lots of examples of countries here in the real world that have higher effective taxes than us and a good quality of life, and almost no examples of countries with lower effective taxes and a good quality of life.

The same is true when it comes to the question of spending cuts. Sure, there are some areas where I think all reasonable people can agree we spend an absurd amount of money. Our military budget is vastly more than all our potential adversaries combined. We could save a whole lot there. We also blow a lot of money on the prison-industrial complex. And the whole "security state" apparatus, from theatrical bag-checking, to Big Brother surveillance programs, to pointless border barriers, is wasteful, and could be trimmed up a great deal. But, even with all that waste, our total spending is relatively low as a share of GDP compared to what's typical for wealthy nations. That suggests we probably have more room to increase it without hurting quality of life, whereas if we cut it down to still more spartan levels, we could quickly see diminishing returns.

Nice try. 3/4 of our spending is on entitlements. Unfortunately that is where you'd have to cut, but in the case of Bernie like dems they want dramatic increases.

I'm not sure who has higher taxes and better standard of living. Venezuela certainly doesn't. The USSR, and China surely didn't.

 

[Nordberg]

The rich already pay "way more". How much "way more" do you want them to pay?

Nope. The wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age, The money is flowing up to them. They are not burdened. The wealthy used to pay 90 percent. But admin after admin, they wealthy have had their rates cut. Many very wealthy say the tax structure should be changed to be more fair.
The wealthy as a group pay a big chunk of out tax revenue collected. When that happens, even though their rate keeps getting smaller, the obvious conclusion is "they have all the fucking money" When a smaller percentage paid that much, then the wealth gap is ridiculous. You are not thinking it through very well.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I see that the assholes of the right continue their delusions and rationalizations.

Right now the upper 1% own 38% of the nation's wealth. The richest 1% own more of the total wealth than the bottom 90%.

But these morons do not see that as a problem.

A question I ask and seldom see answered is: When will too much be be perceived of as too much for you morons?

Would it happen if the upper 1% own 75% of the total wealth?

Would it happen if the upper 1% own 90% of the total wealth?

Would it even happen for you ignorant mother-fuckers if 10 individuals owned 95% of the total wealth?

Just wondering.

 

[dukkha]

oh sure. lets have the feds regulate state taxes..what could go wrong except more taxes?