• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fair and Simple Tax Act. David Dreier

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,464
80
86
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
When someone says "fair taxes" they mean shifting the tax burden on to another group.

So who will have to pay more taxes under this plan?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
Originally posted by: RY62
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
It still reads like a marginal tax plan to me. Did I miss something?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,829
0
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
Typical filthy vampire politician. Anyone who wants 10%+ of my income can go f himself.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,861
1
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: RY62
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
It still reads like a marginal tax plan to me. Did I miss something?
No, RY62 is simply referencing a myth that has been around as long as there have been tax brackets. Unless he's a complete idiot and believes the myth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
All you need to figure this out is that Dreier is a right-wing congressman, and therefore his tax proposal will help the wealthy. Whether it shifts the taxes to the poor or to the debt is just a detail.

You can put lipstick on a pig, as they say, but it is what it is. Having investigated that conclusion in proposal after proposal, there's not much point in doing so for each one they come up with.

It's marketing 101 - start out with what you want, a tax reduction for the wealthy; then ask what will sell it, "simple!"? "fair!"? "New and improved!"? "Conservative!"? "Fiscally responsible!"? Who cares, do some market research and get the popular flavor of the day, and try to put a little in the bill, and then hype it with the flavor at high volume.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Craig234
All you need to figure this out is that Dreier is a right-wing congressman, and therefore his tax proposal will help the wealthy. Whether it shifts the taxes to the poor or to the debt is just a detail.

You can put lipstick on a pig, as they say, but it is what it is. Having investigated that conclusion in proposal after proposal, there's not much point in doing so for each one they come up with.

It's marketing 101 - start out with what you want, a tax reduction for the wealthy; then ask what will sell it, "simple!"? "fair!"? "New and improved!"? "Conservative!"? "Fiscally responsible!"? Who cares, do some market research and get the popular flavor of the day, and try to put a little in the bill, and then hype it with the flavor at high volume.
So now that you've shot him - why exactly do you think this would be bad or wouldn't work? Sounds almost like the system we have today except for simplifying it. I mean, there is still "progressive" taxation which mean the "rich" still pay more than the rest of us. Isn't that what you people want?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,736
13,851
136
"Endorsed by Grover Norquist" pretty much covers the subject. Digging any deeper than that is a waste of effort.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
If the tax rate is simplier, what about all those accountants and lawyers that would be put out of work.

Let the government cut back spending in order to simplify the tax rate. Then there is no shifting of the tax burden (in a large amout) except for the porkers and the leaches.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Endorsed by Grover Norquist" pretty much covers the subject. Digging any deeper than that is a waste of effort.
Hey look another shooter.

But since you and craig234 don't like it(or rather who it's from) then it must not be half bad...(using your tactics)
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,736
13,851
136
Some things don't change, CSG, and Norquist's position on taxes is obviously among them. Just calling it the way it is.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
IMO, we should cut spending down to levels that would allow us to toss personal federal income taxes into the garbage can where they belong.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,950
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
IMO, we should cut spending down to levels that would allow us to toss personal federal income taxes into the garbage can where they belong.
Now there's an idea! A garbage tax! Pay contractors to outfit prohibitively expensive scales on garbage trucks in order to implement it! Create a new department to manage it! Then, take the money, and spend it on the things it wasn't intended for!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
No it wouldn't suck to be him. He'd still pay 15% on the amount below that, and just the raise would be taxed 30%.

That's how tax brackets already work...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Craig234
All you need to figure this out is that Dreier is a right-wing congressman, and therefore his tax proposal will help the wealthy. Whether it shifts the taxes to the poor or to the debt is just a detail.

You can put lipstick on a pig, as they say, but it is what it is. Having investigated that conclusion in proposal after proposal, there's not much point in doing so for each one they come up with.

It's marketing 101 - start out with what you want, a tax reduction for the wealthy; then ask what will sell it, "simple!"? "fair!"? "New and improved!"? "Conservative!"? "Fiscally responsible!"? Who cares, do some market research and get the popular flavor of the day, and try to put a little in the bill, and then hype it with the flavor at high volume.
So now that you've shot him
Shot him? You misrepresent what I said. I pointed out whathis agenda is, and that I disagree with it. If you want to disagree and say that no, this right-wing politician doesn't want to help shift the burden even further off the rich, then go ahead, and offer some evidence, but you can't, because that is his agenda, and my post was right, and your false attack was the only unfair 'shooting' that happened.

why exactly do you think this would be bad or wouldn't work?
If you can't understand the issue I have from what I said, that I'm not in favor of plans that shift the burder further off the very wealthy however much lipstick is added, what can I sai?

For what it's worth, I don't mind some complexity in the tax code, where it serves a useful purpose. When it's merely unjustified special-interest rules, of course, I'm not for that.

And the issue isn't without its gray areas. While deductions for increasing home ownership or for blind people may seem pretty helpful, and sections which say 'Company XYZ is exempt' just because they're a nice donor for a politician are pretty clearly corrupt, there are plenty in the middle that have a bit of both. Are rules to help the elderly good public policy, or handouts to buy their votes under AARP pressure?

The point is as I said, that it's not worth the time to pick apart the hundreds of specific 'proposals' from the righties one at a time, when they prettty much all have the same basic structure of wanting to shift the taxes off the very wealthy, and to use some lipstick, like 'simplified!', to sell it. I said all this already, though, and if you didn't see the point the first time, why will you now?

Sounds almost like the system we have today except for simplifying it.
So, if he doesn't SAY clearly "the real point to this is to shift taxes off the very wealthy!", then you don't think that's the purpose? He has to NAME it the 'help the wealthy' plan for you? No wonder the schemes these people come up with get som many voters' agreement, no wonder the Bush administration named its pro-pollution bill the 'clear skies act' to get agreement - voters like you think if it's named the clear skies act, it must be good for the skies!

I mean, there is still "progressive" taxation which mean the "rich" still pay more than the rest of us. Isn't that what you people want?
Yes, it's less radical, it's less reduction of being 'progressive', than the radical flat tax. So what? It's still a step in the wrong direction.

In the past 30 years, the wealthy have paid a lower and lower share of taxes; that trend should be reversed. The Eisenhower administration and his Republican congress weren't commies, but they had far more taxes paid by business, and a top tax rate of 90%. The nation was not in a catastrophe over it. I'm not saying to go back to that point, but voters like you appear unaware of the huge shift just since Reagan took office off the very wealthy (the top 0.01% especially), which partly explains their incomes skyrocketing hundreds of percent while the bottom 80% have had zero net gins after inflation over 25 years, unprecedented in out nation's history that I'm aware of - increased economic productivity not shared with everyone, but all going to the top. You don't seem to know that, so how can we talk about it?

If you could get past the ideology you have been fed claiming that all fairness concerns are 'just jealousy and class warfare', and instead notice that one of the Richest men in the world, Warren Buffet, has said there is class warfare - and his side is winning - we could start to have a discussion, but that's rare for your side to do. Can you lay out any idea at all about what you think 'fairness' is regarding wealth distribution in the US, other than blind ideology like 'the government shouldn't play any role', which isn't the question?

My position is pretty simple, that an unprecedented lack of sharing in the nation's growth by the bottom 80% over 25 years, with a skyrocketing concentration of wealth draining the economic rewards available for incenting productivity and increasing our economic wealth so that the very wealthy can sit fat and happy, is a problem requiring the system to be better balanced for the very wealthy to pay a fair share, for poverty to be reduced, for the middle class to share in the gains, for there to be resources to reward people.

You know, as CEO compensation has gone from, say, 30 times workers to 400 or more times workers, we have not seen the CEOs somehow run companies much differently.

It's not, as the right-wing propagandists like to lie, an issue of 'class warfare', it's an issue of what's good for the nation, and we WANT people who run companies well to make a lot.

But not an absurd amount that harms the society.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
These are marginal tax rates. Only the amount of income in excess of $150K would be taxed at the 30% rate.

But what I want to know is how would the total revenues under this plan compare with current revenues? Here is the 2007 tax rate table (for marrieds):

$0 $15,650 10% of the amount over $0
$15,650 $63,700 $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650
$63,700 $128,500 $8,772.50 plus 25% of the amount over 63,700
$128,500 $195,850 $24,972.50 plus 28% of the amount over 128,500
$195,850 $349,700 $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850
$349,700 no limit $94,601.00 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

Only dollars betwen $128.5K and $150K would be taxed at a higher rate (2% higher). All other amounts would either be taxed at the current rate or a rate 3 to 13 percentage points below current rates.

Naturally, the big winners would be those at the top: A person with $2 million of taxable income would save $100k in taxes, compared with someone making $100K, who would save about $4800.

And this doesn't include the elimination of the AMT.

I'll bet implementing this tax would reduce federal tax revenues by at least $200 billion a year.


 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
These are marginal tax rates. Only the amount of income in excess of $150K would be taxed at the 30% rate.

But what I want to know is how would the total revenues under this plan compare with current revenues? Here is the 2007 tax rate table (for marrieds):

$0 $15,650 10% of the amount over $0
$15,650 $63,700 $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650
$63,700 $128,500 $8,772.50 plus 25% of the amount over 63,700
$128,500 $195,850 $24,972.50 plus 28% of the amount over 128,500
$195,850 $349,700 $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850
$349,700 no limit $94,601.00 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

Only dollars betwen $128.5K and $150K would be taxed at a higher rate (2% higher). All other amounts would either be taxed at the current rate or a rate 3 to 13 percentage points below current rates.

Naturally, the big winners would be those at the top: A person with $2 million of taxable income would save $100k in taxes, compared with someone making $100K, who would save about $4800.

And this doesn't include the elimination of the AMT.

I'll bet implementing this tax would reduce federal tax revenues by at least $200 billion a year.
As I said, the righties' plans shift taxes off the very wealthy - the shift going to either other taxpayers or the debt, which is an unimportant detail. You clarified, this one is to the debt.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I dont think we should have incremental taxing. %10.00 tax with no other tax breaks would be fine if we were not giving all kind of incentives and breaks to corporations. I am for a flat tax and no tax breaks for anything and no exceptions or exemptions. Eliminate all loopholes and simplify the tax code.

If a chruch can get by on a 10% tithing, that is not even compulsory, then 10% mandatory tax should be good enough for anyone and everyone. There are so many loop holes and special deals now that it takes forever to figure out your taxes. Just make it simple.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: RY62
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
It still reads like a marginal tax plan to me. Did I miss something?
No, RY62 is simply referencing a myth that has been around as long as there have been tax brackets. Unless he's a complete idiot and believes the myth.
I thought the big grin would be a clue. :roll: I probably shouldn't try to be humorous about something as serious as taxes.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont think we should have incremental taxing. %10.00 tax with no other tax breaks would be fine if we were not giving all kind of incentives and breaks to corporations. I am for a flat tax and no tax breaks for anything and no exceptions or exemptions. Eliminate all loopholes and simplify the tax code.

If a chruch can get by on a 10% tithing, that is not even compulsory, then 10% mandatory tax should be good enough for anyone and everyone. There are so many loop holes and special deals now that it takes forever to figure out your taxes. Just make it simple.
Cause your government is just like a church...
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,357
5,359
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
if we were not giving all kind of incentives and breaks to corporations
seeing as how taxes on corporations are usually paid by lower level employees more than anyone else, and usually exclusively, maybe taxes on corporations are something to rethink. though, i'd agree that it'd almost be impossible to explain that concept to the general public so it'd never work.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: RY62
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
It still reads like a marginal tax plan to me. Did I miss something?
No, RY62 is simply referencing a myth that has been around as long as there have been tax brackets. Unless he's a complete idiot and believes the myth.
I thought the big grin would be a clue. :roll: I probably shouldn't try to be humorous about something as serious as taxes.
The smiley was pretty ambiguous as to whether you actually believed what you said or not. Plenty of people do have misunderstandings.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: SSSnail
So I just got a letter in the mail from our Congressman, an excerpt of which is a part where he introduces a bill which would "... provides American with a new optional single page tax form that reduces the tax rates to 10% on the first $40K of income, 15% on earnings beetween $40K - $150K and 30% above $150K".

What do you think?

His site http://dreier.house.gov/
I think it would really suck to be the guy that gets a pay raise that just pushes him over the $150k mark. :D
You can go ahead and bump me just over that $150K mark. I promise, I will not whine and cry! ;) :laugh:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: piasabird
if we were not giving all kind of incentives and breaks to corporations
seeing as how taxes on corporations are usually paid by lower level employees more than anyone else, and usually exclusively, maybe taxes on corporations are something to rethink. though, i'd agree that it'd almost be impossible to explain that concept to the general public so it'd never work.
Huh? No, they're not, they're paid by the corporations.

You think that reduced taxes on corporations go into low levels emploiyees' pockets?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS