what is wrong with raising the personal exemption to $250k?

[Anarchist420]

too many people have to pay taxes, and the govt spends and wastes what it gets. washington said that he hated ingratitude and the govt cant be grateful... none of those in public office are grateful either.

i guess congress should raise the standard deduction for a single filer to $250k as well. then repeal all but the marginal rates for the lowest 3 brackets as well as all other taxes and replace them with nothing other than a different business tax.

also, if the direct income tax exists, then does it really need to be paired with anything else that taxes income (e.g., payroll taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, estate/gift taxes, ACA fines, other fines)?

the corp tax should be replaced with nothing, but barring that: 7% profits tax on businesses with $1bn or more in revenue while having 100 or more employees.

there is no point in the govt having revenue if it is always going to spend more than it takes in anyway plus the fact that it has too many assets. and the u.s. govt only has a credit rating higher than a F- because the former tried to censor people to maintain its credit rating.

 

[Matt1970]

Everyone should have to pay taxes.

 

[madoka]

Everyone should have to pay taxes.

46% of the population pays no federal income tax. That means half of us have to pay all the federal expenses of those that don't.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The moment you move out from under your parent's umbrella, you, personally, are going to live on the government teat.

Where do you think those funds will come from?

I agree that they government has grown to big, but cutting it to what is needed is close to an exercise in futility.

You understand that the payroll tax is the income tax in realtime?

 

[nextJin]

Everyone should have to pay taxes.

I agree, so why doesn't 47% of the country pay income taxes?

 

[Matt1970]

Because of our "Fair" tax system.

 

[Attic]

Because the government needs more money, not less.


Nothing else really matters, even if alternatives to the current paradigm makes sense.

 

[Anarchist420]

46% of the population pays no federal income tax. That means half of us have to pay all the federal expenses of those that don't.

That's true, but the govt can and should quit forcing producers to pay their expenses instead.

I agree, so why doesn't 47% of the country pay income taxes?

it's actually higher than that for federal direct income taxes for examples military contractors and doctors who get more from medicare than they do from out of pocket and insurance.

if 40% of halliburton's revenue comes from govt contracts, then that means that none of their employee are net tax producers. i dont think dick cheney was ever a net tax producer.

if the govt is just going to recycle its waste aka shit and destruction, then what good is it doing? because that is really all it is doing right now by waging offensive wars, militarizing/nationalizing what were meant to be militias and murdering innocents and their pets in the process, etc., etc. then the food stamps are just giving people lousy food while the execs of the grocery stores that accept them just get richer. then medicaid pays for patented drugs.

it's very hard to be a producer these days. i'd bet a maximum of 15% of people 15 and older are actually true producers in that they give more than the State takes. i am thankful for them, and i dont want the corporate state to reduce that to less 15%.

my psychiatrist, for example, is a net shitter. when i asked him to prescribe me adderall, he said id need an appointment and a drug test every much. so i refused and i am going to get another psychiatrist who isnt a classic authoritarian. plus he takes medicare, most of his patients are older at least 20% are 65 or older. i doubt he pays any more than 20% in federal income tax since he only works a few days a week. i guess it doesnt take much intelligence to get an mba after seeing him.

 

[Matt1970]

Cutting spending to match revenue is increasingly unlikely to happen. Raising taxes to actually pay for what we have deemed a necessary government is just as equally unlikely to happen. And so we borrow and print.

 

[Attic]

Cutting spending to match revenue is increasingly unlikely to happen. Raising taxes to actually pay for what we have deemed a necessary government is just as equally unlikely to happen. And so we borrow and print.

I would say impossible. If we cut spending to match revenue it would be deflationary which is anti matter to our economic system. Cutting spending to match revenues is mostly impossible because of 250billion of interest required each year that would need to be paid for with belt tightening and this would almost certainly create a ball rolling where we have to spend less and less to match declining revenues. I think we'd go broke if we balanced the budget, we don't necessarily go broke by not balancing it.

We can possibly have a surplus in gov revs vs spending, but on the whole this will be driven by large deficit spending. ie) We may get to a balanecd budget at 30trillion of national debt, it would be temporary and the next balanced budget would occur again at 50trillion of national debt.

Not to imply I agree with how the system was setup, just trying to argue how it likely has to play out.

 

[Matt1970]

I would say impossible. If we cut spending to match revenue it would be deflationary which is anti matter to our economic system. Cutting spending to match revenues is mostly impossible because of 250billion of interest required each year that would need to be paid for with belt tightening and this would almost certainly create a ball rolling where we have to spend less and less to match declining revenues. I think we'd go broke if we balanced the budget, we don't necessarily go broke by not balancing it.

We can possibly have a surplus in gov revs vs spending, but on the whole this will be driven by large deficit spending. ie) We may get to a balanecd budget at 30trillion of national debt, it would be temporary and the next balanced budget would occur again at 50trillion of national debt.

Not to imply I agree with how the system was setup, just trying to argue how it likely has to play out.

That sounds like a vicious never ending circle. We need to ramp up spending to ensure the revenue is coming in to cover our ramped up spending.

 

[Anarchist420]

Cutting spending to match revenue is increasingly unlikely to happen. Raising taxes to actually pay for what we have deemed a necessary government is just as equally unlikely to happen. And so we borrow and print.

then there should be no taxes if the govt can print or borrow. unfortunately, it has the power to do all three. the most it should have the power to do is borrow gold and decentralize that debt every year. there is more than enough gold in the world for limited govt. limited govt is only possible in a confederation that can only do that. not all transactions would be in gold because there wouldnt be enough, but the market would pick other things and that would be a lot more stable.

the govt will not be limited in any way if rand paul becomes president and what he proposes now was enacted.

dr. paul was right that the fed is not compatible with a free society. but he neglected to realize how easy the constitution has made it for the govt and banks to create money.

I would say impossible. If we cut spending to match revenue it would be deflationary which is anti matter to our economic system. Cutting spending to match revenues is mostly impossible because of 250billion of interest required each year that would need to be paid for with belt tightening and this would almost certainly create a ball rolling where we have to spend less and less to match declining revenues. I think we'd go broke if we balanced the budget, we don't necessarily go broke by not balancing it. We can possibly have a surplus in gov revs vs spending, but on the whole this will be driven by large deficit spending. ie) We may get to a balanecd budget at 30trillion of national debt, it would be temporary and the next balanced budget would occur again at 50trillion of national debt. Not to imply I agree with how the system was setup, just trying to argue how it likely has to play out.

then the empire cant be reversed and it needs to collapse quickly.

 

[Engineer]

It's now 43% and shrinking, not 47% any more. And those people pay taxes, just not the federal income tax. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property (if they have any) taxes, etc.

I do tend to think that the EIC is out of control through and I've actually witnessed abuse of it but also understand that if removed, would those same people be more on the federal welfare doles and not work at all?

http://dmarron.com/2013/08/29/the-47-is-now-43-and-falling/

The reason that many don't pay federal income tax is that we have lowered our rates so much in an attempt to supplement falling wages that we finally went negative and beyond income taxes. Just the consequences of shipping our many of your solid paying middle class jobs. We wanted lower and lower rates and got them....now we bitch about it?

A breakdown of % of income earned vs % taxes (All) paid (looks to me like a pretty close 1 to 1 ration of % income vs % total taxes - about as flat as you're going to get it on ALL taxes paid).

 

[soundforbjt]

It's now 43% and shrinking, not 47% any more. And those people pay taxes, just not the federal income tax. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property (if they have any) taxes, etc.

I do tend to think that the EIC is out of control through and I've actually witnessed abuse of it but also understand that if removed, would those same people be more on the federal welfare doles and not work at all?

http://dmarron.com/2013/08/29/the-47-is-now-43-and-falling/

The reason that many don't pay federal income tax is that we have lowered our rates so much in an attempt to supplement falling wages that we finally went negative and beyond income taxes. Just the consequences of shipping our many of your solid paying middle class jobs. We wanted lower and lower rates and got them....now we bitch about it?

Please don't use logic, they think it's perfectly fine that GE got a tax refund and paid negative taxes, but someone making $15K a year should definately be paying...

 

[ivwshane]

It's now 43% and shrinking, not 47% any more. And those people pay taxes, just not the federal income tax. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property (if they have any) taxes, etc.

I do tend to think that the EIC is out of control through and I've actually witnessed abuse of it but also understand that if removed, would those same people be more on the federal welfare doles and not work at all?

http://dmarron.com/2013/08/29/the-47-is-now-43-and-falling/

The reason that many don't pay federal income tax is that we have lowered our rates so much in an attempt to supplement falling wages that we finally went negative and beyond income taxes. Just the consequences of shipping our many of your solid paying middle class jobs. We wanted lower and lower rates and got them....now we bitch about it?

How is the eitc abused? By getting paid via cash? By both parents claiming their kids separately?

 

[Engineer]

How is the eitc abused? By getting paid via cash? By both parents claiming their kids separately?

I have witnessed people who work for part of the year, quit and then draw food stamps, etc. until the end of the year and then reap a full EIC return. This was in the past when jobs were plentiful so I'm not sure if people do this as much now as it was much more easy then.

When asked about why they quit working, they didn't beat around the bush. They said it was to maximize the tax return (EIC) at the end of the year.

 

[IGBT]

local / state fed gov.should have to crawl around on their knees and beg for taxes. Had that been the case we wouldn't be in the massive unmanageable mess we are now stuck with.

 

[nextJin]

With our system we definately need taxes, but even those making 15k should put some skin in the game. I don't care if it's 1% or 1 dollar a month tbh.

 

[Anarchist420]

A breakdown of % of income earned vs % taxes (All) paid (looks to me like a pretty close 1 to 1 ration of % income vs % total taxes - about as flat as you're going to get it on ALL taxes paid).

it's not a bad chart, but it isnt too explicit about the bottom 20% not paying full payroll tax.

But now that the Party of Lincoln has broadened the base at the State level, they actually have more revenue than they would if they just attempted to only "soak the rich". So Lyin Ryan's plan was far more reliant on tax increases than spending cuts to cut the deficit. And the Republicans try to claim they want to claim taxes which makes the Democrats not quite as evil (pure evil nonetheless though_.

With our system we definately need taxes, but even those making 15k should put some skin in the game. I don't care if it's 1% or 1 dollar a month tbh.

That's a slippery slope and more importantly, not all of them would want a govt anyway if they lived for awhile without one and also with another while.

 

[ivwshane]

I have witnessed people who work for part of the year, quit and then draw food stamps, etc. until the end of the year and then reap a full EIC return. This was in the past when jobs were plentiful so I'm not sure if people do this as much now as it was much more easy then.

When asked about why they quit working, they didn't beat around the bush. They said it was to maximize the tax return (EIC) at the end of the year.

I'm clueless about the eitc, but how could a credit be worth more money than actually working? If you make, say $9k for six months are you saying they would get $9k back in a tax credit at the end of the year?

I guess I just don't understand how it works well enough to understand how fraud would happen like you are describing.

 

[Engineer]

I'm clueless about the eitc, but how could a credit be worth more money than actually working? If you make, say $9k for six months are you saying they would get $9k back in a tax credit at the end of the year?

I guess I just don't understand how it works well enough to understand how fraud would happen like you are describing.

Don't know what the limits are but yes, you get back up to $6,000 more than you pay in to the system (not counting payroll taxes) but it takes quite a bit of income to get that back. It also depends on the number of kids that you have.

 

[Attic]

That sounds like a vicious never ending circle. We need to ramp up spending to ensure the revenue is coming in to cover our ramped up spending.

From my understanding this is exactly how it is designed to play out. The ramped up spending makes a few folks involved in those transactions fabulously wealthy and it grants immense control and power to those who create and spend the money (the owners of the fed and government).

What you've described is actually the balance our monetary system self fulfills during it's function. The monetary system is setup to be in balance not when all debts are paid, it's balance occurs with added debt. It's very unique from how nearly everyone understands a budget and how a budget should work for an individual or family unit.

 

[Attic]

I have witnessed people who work for part of the year, quit and then draw food stamps, etc. until the end of the year and then reap a full EIC return. This was in the past when jobs were plentiful so I'm not sure if people do this as much now as it was much more easy then.

When asked about why they quit working, they didn't beat around the bush. They said it was to maximize the tax return (EIC) at the end of the year.

This is good, people should be expected to do what they can to improve their situations. It is helpful if they stay within the legal limits to achieve this, which these folks are. Everybody has a duty to avoid (legal) as much taxation as possible, they shouldn't evade (illegal) them. In our political environment the problem occurs when people lie and decieve about the results of policy, therefore bad policy remains because of obfuscation about the reality of it's results. ie) It's better for the country to have government handouts remain as they are because, the deceitful part - "it's not abused much or the abuse doesn't matter in the big picture."

If folks were honest about outcomes of policy the country might be in a much better state. The War on Poverty, if allowed some fundamental changes, might get folks out of poverty instead of keeping them in it.

It simply means we need different policy if we want different results. I think, realizing, how much much power government already wields over the people, it only makes sense to remove some of that power. We are busy emboldening bureaucratic douchebags.

 

[PrinceofWands]

too many people have to pay taxes,

Bad sign when I already disagree with your premise. Any person who works, or is over 18 should pay taxes. The problem isn't too many paying too much, it's too few paying too little.

and the govt spends and wastes what it gets. washington said that he hated ingratitude and the govt cant be grateful... none of those in public office are grateful either.

i guess congress should raise the standard deduction for a single filer to $250k as well. then repeal all but the marginal rates for the lowest 3 brackets as well as all other taxes and replace them with nothing other than a different business tax.

Now we DO agree that government spends our taxes unwisely. However, this is going to be impossible to solve so long as we're so large (in area and population) and diverse. The only credible option is to fracture the nation into smaller, more ideologically homogeneous entities.

also, if the direct income tax exists, then does it really need to be paired with anything else that taxes income (e.g., payroll taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, estate/gift taxes, ACA fines, other fines)?

We somewhat agree here. Double-dipping (or more) is a significant issue. I'd like to see One option for the fed, one for the states, and one for the county/parish/city. It should be VERY easy to calculate ones total tax burden, and know exactly where it's going.

the corp tax should be replaced with nothing, but barring that: 7% profits tax on businesses with $1bn or more in revenue while having 100 or more employees.

I'll accept one of two things:

corporations are NOT people/entities - They are prevented from having anything of their own, and every penny made by the operation of the company must be claimed as income by someone somewhere.

corporations ARE people/entities - They are taxed and ruled EXACTLY as an individual is. In every way. No exceptions, no loopholes.

there is no point in the govt having revenue if it is always going to spend more than it takes in anyway plus the fact that it has too many assets. and the u.s. govt only has a credit rating higher than a F- because the former tried to censor people to maintain its credit rating.

So as usual we agree on some things, but are diametrically opposed on others.

 

[Matt1970]

From my understanding this is exactly how it is designed to play out. The ramped up spending makes a few folks involved in those transactions fabulously wealthy and it grants immense control and power to those who create and spend the money (the owners of the fed and government).

What you've described is actually the balance our monetary system self fulfills during it's function. The monetary system is setup to be in balance not when all debts are paid, it's balance occurs with added debt. It's very unique from how nearly everyone understands a budget and how a budget should work for an individual or family unit.

The problem is how much we are borrowing to ramp up that spending.