Kerry's tax plan

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
A question for those who prefer a progressive type tax system.

Why do you believe that someone who makes more money than someone else should pay a higher percentage in income taxes?

Because we have bills to pay as a nation, and somebody has to come up with the money for it. Since they can most afford to pay without it impinging on their lifestyle, they should be asked to pay more. Again, it's a simple and undeniable fact. Someone making $200,000 a year and paying $30,000 in taxes is hurt considerably less (in terms of buying power and quality of life) than someone making $20,000 and paying $1000.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Why is it that the income tax system is the only one (that I know of) that does that?

Every other tax that we pay (for goods, services and excise) is at a flat rate.

Actually, no, the wealthy pay more in sales taxes as well, since they can, you know, afford to actually BUY things other than absolute necessities.

Simply put, a flat tax disproportionately affects the poor while a progressive tax disporportionately affects the wealthy...but the wealthy can better afford to pay it without dropping their quality of life.

 

[Tinks]

I've always had trouble with this tax system. Here we are a country of equality, equality, equality.........equal opportunity for everyone......

What is equal and fair with taxing a higher percentage to someone just because they earn a higher income? Didn't they work for that income? Somehow their work deserves to be taxed more?? That's fair

A land of opportunity.....but don't earn too much or we'll penalize you for working too hard and getting ahead in life.

It's just as bad as taxing more for the self-employed. Can someone explain that?

I realize that people who earn less have a harder time of it. No question about it. But it doesn't make higher taxing based on your income level fair, and it never will...sorry.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Look here wise butt, knock off the sarcasm. It's getting old.

Coming from you, that's hilarious

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I asked a simple question.

And I answered it. I can't help it you didn't like the answer, so decide to take umbrage at how it was phrased.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
People at or below the poverty level pay NO taxes with all the credits they get.

You say that like it's a bad thing...Again, not a single person here would willingly trade places with a houshold trying to eek out a living under the poverty line...Are you saying they SHOULD have to give up what little income they make so that Billionaires could save a few bucks ?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Let me ask you this, what's your "official" tax rate and what is you "effective" tax rate?

Not sure why this is any business of yours...or what it has to do with anything in the current discussion.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
If you make enough money without deductions to live, why should you get them? Wouldn't that leave more money to give the poor?

Yes, but we're not trying to support them entirely, we're just trying to ensure that everyone has enough money to live. It's not "redistribution of wealth" no matter how many times the loonies on the right try to lable it as such.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
And of course no one would WANT to trade their higher paying job with a lower (much much lower) paying one. What's the point in asking?

But why not ? After all, that janitor probably pays considerably less in taxes than the CEO...By your argument, it should be a no brainer

 

[The Mystery Machine]

What I don't understand is that NO ONE here is in that top 1% and yet you defend it very strongly. These are the people deciding what's up all the way from policy to paying.

Now that IS NOT fair either.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy


You say that like it's a bad thing...Again, not a single person here would willingly trade places with a household trying to eek out a living under the poverty line...Are you saying they SHOULD have to give up what little income they make so that Billionaires could save a few bucks ?

No, it's not a bad thing. It's just the way the current system works. Fair or not, it just is.

Not sure why this is any business of yours...or what it has to do with anything in the current discussion.

Yes, but we're not trying to support them entirely, we're just trying to ensure that everyone has enough money to live. It's not "redistribution of wealth" no matter how many times the loonies on the right try to label it as such.

The two question were related.

Answer the question. If you can afford to live without taking any deductions, why do so? Wouldn't that mean that you're a nicer more compassionate person who really wants to help? Or does that mean that the taxes you pay after deductions is enough (by your standards)?

So, what do you call taking more money (disproportionately) from me and giving it to someone else who makes less (either by tax credit or social program)?

Sounds like redistributing the wealth to me.

 

[Disney Doll]

I don't know enough about the tax system details yet to really comment on thi subject, but a thought comes to mind as I read and hear what both candidates have to say about taxes:

Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry or their families would be considered "poor" by anyone's standards in this country. Therefore, my guess is that whatever tax modifications they make will not adversely or unfairly affect the rich, because, quite frankly, that is the tax bracket they are in, and I doubt they'd want to, in effect, "screw" themselves into paying more taxes. That's why I find it almost laughable when either Senator Kerry or President Bush says they understand the plight of the poor and middle class in the country today. They don't. They haven't been poor or middle class in a darn long time, and if there was a time in their lives when they were, it was too long ago to have any similarity to the poor or middle class's experience today. The same could be said of the VP and VP candidate, although out of everyone, John Edwards is probably the closest one to remembering what it was like to be middle class, although I doubt it's in his recent memory .

As far as the rich vs. poor thing...well, I don't consider myself rich, I consider myself middle-class and DH & I make A LOT Less than $200K per year! . I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes, but I do have a problem when those who could be considered rich, or at least very "well-to-do", figure out a million ways to hide money, or "beat" the system to not be taxed on their income. And it happens. I am a nurse, and I can't tell you the # of times I have cared for elderly people whose children have taken the pains to "move money around" so that their parent looks like they have nothing so they can receive their care under Title IX, even though the parent has a large amount of assets. This, of course, protects the childen's inheritance while placing the burden of care on the taxpayer. How do I know this??? Usually these folks are quite proud of their ability to beat the system.

 

[barbeml]

IMHO, if it is not fair to tax people more if they have a lot more, then it is not fair to load up the tax code with special loopholes, exemptions and deductions that only the wealthy can benefit from.

Years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer did an incredible investigative series (America: What Went Wrong?) that exposed, among other things, tax loopholes that were designed to help just one company or individual. Such special treatment is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

 

[GoofItUp]

You're talking about people making next to NOTHING...They make BARELY enough money to survive in poverty...Can we please knock of the crap about how great they've got it ? The fact is that NONE of us would willingly trade places with the people making that kind of money and living that kind of life.

No, I would not want their life. That is why I made decisions and worked very hard to attain the life I have. And before you say those opportunities were not available to them, let me tell you that I worked for several years to put myself through college. Why am I penalized for making good choices and improving myself?

Yes, but we're not trying to support them entirely, we're just trying to ensure that everyone has enough money to live. It's not "redistribution of wealth" no matter how many times the loonies on the right try to lable it as such.

Let me think this over.....I have to pay higher taxes so that others can have that money in the form of tax rebates when they didn't pay any taxes in. I think that is exactly redistribution of wealth. What in the world do you call it?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by The Mystery Machine
What I don't understand is that NO ONE here is in that top 1% and yet you defend it very strongly. These are the people deciding what's up all the way from policy to paying.

Now that IS NOT fair either.

Personally, I'm only defending myself. But it's the principle that matters.

But the ironic thing is that NO ONE (ok, there may be a few) who's for a higher tax rate for higher income earners is willing to give up their deductions and/or voluntarily pay more into the system. They'd prefer that everyone be forced to pay more into the system.

 

[Minnie824]

I have cared for elderly people whose children have taken the pains to "move money around" so that their parent looks like they have nothing so they can receive their care under Title IX, even though the parent has a large amount of assets. This, of course, protects the childen's inheritance while placing the burden of care on the taxpayer.

The health care industry is another issue. The amount of money elderly people have to pay for a prescription of doctor care is ridiculous. But what do the elderly want? All their hard earned money being spent on the ridiculous bills for treatment they need, instead of going to their children? It may not be a matter of selfish children - I know when I'm older, I'd rather have my kids have my hard earned money. But then, this is a whole other discussion.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, no, the wealthy pay more in sales taxes as well, since they can, you know, afford to actually BUY things other than absolute necessities.

National sales tax anyone?

http://www.fairtax.org

Richard

 

[Paperina]

"No, I would not want their life. That is why I made decisions and worked very hard to attain the life I have. And before you say those opportunities were not available to them, let me tell you that I worked for several years to put myself through college. Why am I penalized for making good choices and improving myself?"

I agree 100%! I also agree with the original poster - flat tax. How much money could the Government save without the IRS?

 

[Broken8ball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Simply put, a flat tax disproportionately affects the poor while a progressive tax disporportionately affects the wealthy...but the wealthy can better afford to pay it without dropping their quality of life.

You know, socialists like you make me sick. You are the reason this country is going down the tubes.

Those making more than 200k have EARNED it. They bothered to take the time to go to school, graduate from college and work hard. Your average janitor never even bothered to graduate from HS.

The current tax system is punitive to those who work for their success. It rewards slackers and laziness. Who accesses the services paid for by the tax system? Certainly not the people who have paid into it.

THe original purpose of the tax system was to collect money to pay for neccessary government expenses. Now our tax system is being used for social engineering. You don't like somethng (big cars, tobaccco, certain types of food and beverages), you tax the crap out of it. You don't think some people have enough stuff, tax the people that have money and just give it to everyone else. The goal is to make everyone the same (except for the multimillionaire fat cat politicians who claim to speak "for the little guy").

Pretty soon you liberals are going to want to replace the eagle as the national symbol with the hammer and sickle and rewrite the constitution.

 

[jrydberg]

Actually, I think one of the main reasons the tax code will never become "uncomplicated" is that doing so would put a lot of jobs at risk. No need for a tax professional if it's not complicated. No need for a host of IRS auditors. No need for a team of consultants from one of the big accounting firms to come in and audit at your books for tax purposes. There would be quite a bit of resistance to any proposal to radically simplify the tax code.

That said, I do think some of the loopholes need to be closed.

 

[Razor Roman]

I, too, am for a "flat tax"... but I am a supply sider.... or as they say "trickle down". My fiancee and I together make about 80,000 a year, and we just bought a house and we have no money for any extras. Nothing. We live in central NJ where single family homes in safe neighborhoods start at 200,000.

I even took a second job last year to help save money for a downpayment. I made $958 working at Best Buy from November - December (the only part I've paid taxes on so far) and making that extra $958 took me from a $300+ refund of the nearly $7,000 I had taken out of my paycheck for state and federal taxes - to OWEING $250 to the federal government.

How does that work? If you factor in the fact that I bought myself dinner every night between the two jobs I was working, I think I lost money on the deal.

Meanwhile, they talk about socializing healthcare to "fix" it, and they will take away my health insurance, which is AWESOME. And my father who is disabled and requires 20,000 a year in medecine is about to lose his cobra from before he had to retire and there is no real good options for him. Now, a common sense thing to do about that would be to allow me to put him on my insurance (even if it costs a few hundred a month). In New Jersey, if my father and I could prove we were a homosexual couple, he COULD be on my insurance. But since we're not gay, the only way for him to do this would be to sell my parent's house, divorce my mom, and turn his social security check over to me everymonth so I can pay 51% or more of his living expenses and claim him as my dependant. Which could take years anyway.

 

[KarenC]

If Kerry wins, I believe my taxes will go up (depends on whether the dollar figure is gross income or after deductions). I'm okay with this. I really don't spend a lot of time losing sleep over how much in taxes my husband and I pay. The tax cut didn't change our standard of living, and paying taxes at the level we were before shouldn't either.

Maybe our federal taxes are at a higher rate than those at lower income levels, but I get to reduce a lot of that burden by writing off my mortgage, pouring as much money as I can into my 401K, and donating dollars and items to charity. I don't pay as high a percentage of my income in social security taxes, property taxes or sales taxes as people at lower income levels do.

While I do not consider myself rich, we are fortunate. We have the health care we need, our kids attend outstanding schools, we feel safe in our community, and we have gone on lots of really nice vacations. Our family has come a long way--my grandfather came to this country with $7 in his pocket. He worked as a janitor. My dad went to college on a scholarship. I was always reminded of what my dad's parents had left in Eastern Europe and cautioned not to take my good fortune for granted. I've been blessed with the chance to grow up in the greatest country in the world. I want my kids to have the same chances I did--and a healthy US economy is essential for them to have those opportunities.

I work closely with the financial markets, so I have what you might think of as a front row seat on the US economy. I know we cannot sustain deficit spending forever and that our economy does much better when the private sector is not competing with the federal government in the capital markets for money. I also know that there is no party, democratic or republican, that is willing to spend the political capital necessary to cut spending enough to bring in the deficit.

The government will soon announce that this year's deficit will be a record $420-450 billion. That's nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars that we are passing on to our kids! Taxes are going up, regardless of who wins in November. The financial markets will demand it. (Remember that Ronald Reagan had more tax increases or "revenue enhancements" than he did tax cuts.) I suspect that if Bush wins, the tax increases will be across the board. If Kerry wins, you know where he stands.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Personally, I'm only defending myself. But it's the principle that matters.

But the ironic thing is that NO ONE (ok, there may be a few) who's for a higher tax rate for higher income earners is willing to give up their deductions and/or voluntarily pay more into the system. They'd prefer that everyone be forced to pay more into the system.

Well, dang. I just typed up an entire response, got "server too busy", hit back, and it was gone. *sigh* But that does kind of illustrate one of my points, which I'll get to later. LOL

First of all, Elwood, you can count me as the few who gave up deductions technically "due" to me because I didn't feel it was right that I should get back what I didn't pay in. And I'm speaking as a single mom, 2 kids, earning less than $25K/year.

That aside, why do so many people still seem to equate "equal" with "fair"? And even putting THAT aside, haven't we ALL learned, at one point or another, that life is largely not fair? It's like a bunch of little kids scrabbling over who Mom gave the slightly bigger piece of cake too.

We live in a great country. We are all of us, each and every one of us, incredibly lucky and priveleged to live here. We are blessed with having a government in which we can have a say, where the voice of the people can be heard, and can (although not without a struggle) make a difference. But you know what? Like it costs money to run a household, it costs money to run a country. We parents often tell our kids "Money doesn't grow on trees", but maybe some people need to take that advice themselves. I have never understood, never, never, never, why people piss and moan about paying their taxes. Where do they think the money comes from to run our government? To pay our military? To protect our country? To enable and protect our legal system? It comes from US, the citizens. And why shouldn't someone who can afford it, pay a little more than someone who has no more to pay? My God, they should be PROUD that they have the ability to help build our country and keep it the great place that it is. But instead we're going to ***** about a few pennies out of every dollar?

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ask ANY person working full time below the poverty level whether they'd trade places with someone making an incredibly high salary if it also meant they'd have to pay more in taxes, and see what they say.

What, seriously? I didn't earn a job making an incredibly high salary - I had neither the skills nor the training. My first job out of college put me right on the poverty line (I lived in parental assisted housing ) - because that's what I had trained to do. It was my choices in life that got me every job I've had in life. IF I want to make more, I should start making better choices.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Personally, I'm only defending myself. But it's the principle that matters.

But the ironic thing is that NO ONE (ok, there may be a few) who's for a higher tax rate for higher income earners is willing to give up their deductions and/or voluntarily pay more into the system. They'd prefer that everyone be forced to pay more into the system.

You mean no one OTHER THAN John Kerry and John Edwards, right ? I mean, they are the ones pushing this idea, and as everyone knows, they are certainly in that highest of tax brackets.

 

[barbeml]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, not everyone is born with the smarts and skills (let alone the nurturing home enviroment) to get a $200,000 job. My brother was born developmentally disabled. For 13 years the only work he could get was cleaning toilets and sweeping floors at a McDonalds for minimum wage. He now works in a mail room and is lucky enough to have some benefits, but could never earn enough to be self-supporting. He has worked hard every day of his life and never taken a dime of government assistance.

Makes me sad to think that someone like you would spot him sweeping up at McDonald's and label him so cruelly based on his job.

I also know someone who inherited a family car dealership. "didn't bother to get an education," because he knew the pot of gold was there for him. His "job" consists of showing up once in a while to browbeat the employees. Mostly, he plays golf.

Not every person who makes lots of money "earns" it and not everyone who makes little money is lazy.