Tax reform on the docket for 2012 legislative session (Savannah: mortgage, how much)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

History shows that society will eventually react to inequality. I give the current trend 10-20 more years before something snaps.

You could be right if we continue down a system where the President vilifies business and successful people, and where our tax system continues to exempt more and more people from paying taxes, while demanding that those who pay the overwhelming majority of taxes pay more.

If your point is that the "masses" will rise up and their will be "revolution" and the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeois and institute a utopian society where things will be done as they should be done, from each based on his ability, to each according to his needs, then you've not been paying attention to the country. Watch what happens in this coming election and remember what happened in the election of 2010.

Economic growth and a return to fiscal sanity is what this country sorely needs. Assuming that happens in the next year or two, then I have hope. First thing we need is a President and Congress who are willing to do the heavy lifting, not this bunch of absolute idiots who have abdicated their responsibility (and I include both parties for 50 years) and left us waist deep in debt and a welfare state. The demonizing and demagoguery must also stop, and people with some backbone like Paul Ryan shouldn't be portrayed as shoving granny over a cliff by union money.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Again, I would support and exemption and would hope that the current proposal would be modified to include one.

You trust our politicians enough to increase taxes AND do so properly? Furthermore, why are you in favor of a tax that will disproportionately hurt the poor?

That's not what I said. I believe that everyone should share in paying taxes and supporting our gov't. The current system is preferential to some and punitive to others. I would return to a more fair system.

Oh yes you did. You've made your position clear that it would be more fair to raise taxes on the middle class and lower taxes on the rich, a position I strongly disagree with. C'mon, neil, at least own up to what you said.

When you pay tax, you tend to care more about where that money goes. We have too many in our society today who pay nothing or very little and are in the mindset that the money grows on trees.

And that justifies raising taxes on the middle class how?

Actually, until 2009, poverty was going down as a percentage. As far as so-called "income disparity", I do believe that's a meaningless statistic cooked up by people who want to play the class warfare game. The job of gov't and society is not to make everyone economically equal.

The statistics show that poverty had been declining until the last few years, and some of that is how we measure poverty. Someone with no income is considered "poor" despite the fact that they may have a large net worth. The definition also fails to include any gov't subsidies or payments someone receives. A kid living off a trust fund is considered poor if they don't earn any wages.

Poverty - U.S. Census Bureau

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

You think I was bluffing? Fine.

First of all, here is a chart of US poverty rates stretched back across the last few decades.



Notice that in the 2000s, the poverty rate steadily rose. But it doesn't end there. Income disparity was on the rise. And I'm sorry, neil, but contrary to your opinion, there IS a such thing as income disparity; you can ignore the facts all you want to, but ignorance doesn't make it so.





Did you see that second chart? Look at what the AVERAGE salary of all Americans except the top 10% is: $31,244. For a family of four, that's less than $10,000 above the poverty line. Do you realize what I'm saying here, Neil? Under the current system, in the United States of America, the AVERAGE family of four--not counting the top 10% of income earners--will earn less than $10,000 above the poverty line, if only one person works. No wonder many families have to have both parents working!

What you and the rest of the libertarian/conservatives don't understand is that if we go with your proposed tax changes, this situation is only going to get worse. The superrich will continue to line their pockets, while the rest of us will take yet another hit, right at a time when we literally cannot afford it.

Remind me why the hell you support this?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Furthermore, why are you in favor of a tax that will disproportionately hurt the poor?

I've told you I'm not. I'm for a flat income tax and/or consumption taxes that treat everyone the same. The more you make, the more you pay, and the more you spend, the more you pay.

I'm for tax fairness. I'm for not penalizing one group for political purposes while favoring another. I'm for everyone paying something.

As I mentioned, if you pay taxes and you see the money leave your pocket, then you may be more inclined to care about where that money is spent. Today, we have runaway spending in DC and many states partly because a huge swath of the population has been essentially made exempt from paying taxes. Given they pay very little or nothing, they have little to no urgency about our current fiscal situation.

If that translates to you as being in favor of hurting the poor, then so be it.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I've told you I'm not. I'm for a flat income tax and/or consumption taxes that treat everyone the same. The more you make, the more you pay, and the more you spend, the more you pay.

I'm for tax fairness. I'm for not penalizing one group for political purposes while favoring another. I'm for everyone paying something.

Neil--are you in favor of a tax hike on the middle class, yes or no?

As I mentioned, if you pay taxes and you see the money leave your pocket, then you may be more inclined to care about where that money is spent. Today, we have runaway spending in DC and many states partly because a huge swath of the population has been essentially made exempt from paying taxes. Given they pay very little or nothing, they have little to no urgency about our current fiscal situation.

If that translates to you as being in favor of hurting the poor, then so be it.

You come across to me as a reasonably intelligent person. It's a real shame, then, when intelligent people stoop to silly arguments such as these.

I wish we would just return to the Eisenhower, Ford, or Nixon tax rates. The middle class did fine under them. And oh yeah, all three of them were Republicans.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by neil0311

You could be right if we continue down a system where the President vilifies business and successful people, and where our tax system continues to exempt more and more people from paying taxes, while demanding that those who pay the overwhelming majority of taxes pay more.

I don't understand this comment. It has already been clearly shown in this forum that the top end of the taxpayer spectrum is paying far less now in taxes than 20 years ago. What exactly do you want? Zero taxes?

If your point is that the "masses" will rise up and their will be "revolution" and the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeois and institute a utopian society where things will be done as they should be done, from each based on his ability, to each according to his needs, then you've not been paying attention to the country. Watch what happens in this coming election and remember what happened in the election of 2010.

I'm not talking about Animal Farm, and I think reality is far more interesting than a storybook. Who is living in a fantasy, I wonder?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I don't understand this comment. It has already been clearly shown in this forum that the top end of the taxpayer spectrum is paying far less now in taxes than 20 years ago.

I don't get your point. Just because there was even more of an unfair distribution 20 years ago doesn't mean it was better. Remember the Beatles' song "Tax Man?"

The top % of wage earners pay the huge and overwhelming majority of federal income tax, while 50% pays nothing. I don't want to pay zero, just my "fair share" along with others who pay theirs.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

"The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."

[toll_booth]

Neil, I asked you a question in my last post.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I don't get your point. Just because there was even more of an unfair distribution 20 years ago doesn't mean it was better. Remember the Beatles' song "Tax Man?"

I'm questioning your insinuation that the top folks are somehow "paying more" at this point in time.

The big question appears to be "what is fair", and I realize it isn't obvious, but I know that I get hammered at tax time as a member of the middle class, and I think the amount of taxes I pay at my relatively modest imcome level impacts my overall quality of life far more than the amount being paid by those at the top. $1000 is a huge chunk of change for me. We can't even afford trips to the home state during the holidays these days, and those are far less than a grand.

That said, I'm willing to pay it as long as others also pay their fare share, and I think (based on many articles I've read over the past few years) that the folks who are getting away with murder w.r.t. taxes are large corporations, not citizens.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Neil, I asked you a question in my last post.

And I've answered it.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

And I've answered it.

No you haven't. I asked:

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Neil--are you in favor of a tax hike on the middle class, yes or no?

It's a straight-up yes-or-no question. What is your answer?