Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.... AND we need more taxPAYERS. The govt expempts too many people from paying for the services they are receiving. I am for abolishing ALL expemptions and credits on your 1040. Poor people need to contribute too. You wannna bring three kids into the world...fine....PAY for them.
Number of individual tax returns filed in 2000: 128.2 million (Income Tax Revenue: $981 Billion)
Number of individual tax returns filed in 2008: 140.0 million (Income Tax Revenue: $825 Billion)
Number of tax return filings increased by 10% (keeping up with population growth), but tax revenue dropped by 16% (constant 2000 dollars). What happened?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,298 posts, read 4,391,019 times
Reputation: 2394
What cracks me up is hearing some politicians crying that a balanced budget amendment would be devastating to SS, Medicare/aid and other programs. In other words, they have no intention of using any sort of budget management (to keep within the established budget). They even go so far as to label anyone who dares suggest a "balanced budget" as inhuman and wanting to kill people. Forcing the budget to operate within it's predetermined limits (that includes cost increases, inflation, etc) is just common sense and responsible government.
Number of individual tax returns filed in 2000: 128.2 million (Income Tax Revenue: $981 Billion)
Number of individual tax returns filed in 2008: 140.0 million (Income Tax Revenue: $825 Billion)
Number of tax return filings increased by 10% (keeping up with population growth), but tax revenue dropped by 16%. What happened?
We reduced tax rates on the lowest tax bracket by 1/3, increased the personnel exemptions and child credits, and expanded EITC. Seems likely that many of those that filed income taxes in later years would be getting back more than was paid, adding to the number of people that paid no federal income tax (after their refunds).
We could and perhaps should go back to the pre-Bush tax rates. It would significantly increase taxes on the lowest tax brackets and pretty drastically on the middle class, and return the "marrage penalty". But it could perhaps reduce the percentage of people who pay no income tax.
We reduced tax rates on the lowest tax bracket by 1/3, increased the personnel exemptions and child credits, and expanded EITC. Seems likely that many of those that filed income taxes in later years would be getting back more than was paid, adding to the number of people that paid no federal income tax (after their refunds).
We could and perhaps should go back to the pre-Bush tax rates. It would significantly increase taxes on the lowest tax brackets and pretty drastically on the middle class, and return the "marrage penalty". But it could perhaps reduce the percentage of people who pay no income tax.
If there is no significant gain with tax cuts to the top wage earners, why do republicans and conservatives get their panties twisted in a knot at the idea of letting the tax cuts expire for them? They gained nothing, after all. Right?
BTW, the numbers I provided were to dispel a myth, or at least an extremely poor understanding. Did more tax payers equate to more taxes? Nope.
What cracks me up is hearing some politicians crying that a balanced budget amendment would be devastating to SS, Medicare/aid and other programs. In other words, they have no intention of using any sort of budget management (to keep within the established budget). They even go so far as to label anyone who dares suggest a "balanced budget" as inhuman and wanting to kill people. Forcing the budget to operate within it's predetermined limits (that includes cost increases, inflation, etc) is just common sense and responsible government.
The problem isn't with balancing the budget, but that one side wants to use it to push its ideology over everybody else. It is no secret that the republicans want to eliminate SS and Medicare/Medicaid/Chip as we know it. Such proposals from the right wingers are, hence, designed to meet that goal, hence the opposition from the left. Cutting taxes helps them meet lower revenue goals, which they use as an argument against SS and Medicare, and government spending in general (except for the welfare program for the Military Industrial Complex).
This is why, a bipartisan approach would be to enforce, not just spending limits measured against the size of economy, but also revenue collection measured against the same. But, that won't work with you and the real intent, would it?
If there is no significant gain with tax cuts to the top wage earners, why do republicans and conservatives get their panties twisted in a knot at the idea of letting the tax cuts expire for them? They gained nothing, after all. Right?
BTW, the numbers I provided were to dispel a myth, or at least an extremely poor understanding. Did more tax payers equate to more taxes? Nope.
The issue is that the "Bush tax cuts for the Rich" did more for lower and middle income earners as far as a reduction in percentage in taxes paid, than it did for the higher incomes. You seem to support returning to this less progressive time. Which, much as it would pain me as a middle income taxpayer, I might go along with if we had meaningful spending cuts.
It is interesting that under the period of the "BTC" we had the highest federal revenue of all time, exceeding significantly those of 1999-2000. Which goes to show that tax revenue is highly dependant on GDP and financial health. During a recession, tax revenue drops, regardless of rate.
What do people have against it? The government would constantly end up increasing and reducing spending. Economies are cyclic and you'd be limited in balancing out those effects. You'd have deeper recessions and more pronounced bull markets. You'd also end up with no money for almost anything.
In our current economic/democraphic state, you'd see new taxes ever year to pay for old people.
A balanced budget is a great idea, but getting ANYTHING done in this country is so difficult that the politics of it really wouldn't work.
Basically, it's akin to a person not allowing themselves to use any credit in case the engine goes on the car or the roof goes on your house.
The average American wants lower government spending with no new taxes and no reductions in anything that has an impact on them. That's just not possible.
By the way, why wasn't anyone talking about this AT ALL when Republicans had full power in the 2000's.
Brazilians get money to drill deep water while our workers in Louisiana are sitting at home waiting to go back to work...that evil oil.I don't know where you got your stats but i just googled stimulus and it only saved jobs that are tied into city,county state government workers you mean we the taxpayers have to bail them out every year?
I don't blame Obama for this mess as i don't blame Bush [he was never in Congress or had anything to do with past policy] but for him to continue to whine and cry blaming others for the mess he inherited is getting old.
Our problem is we no longer manufacture things that does create jobs and a tax base example Enron they speculated and bought energy credits that they sold for a profit ...they didn't produce energy or refine energy but Duke Energy does.How about Farmville on Facebook imaginary cows crops but worth a billion dollars are you kidding me.NAFTA was the start of our woes then the Chinese job give away and both parties are to blame for our job losses.Time to make America business friendly again...
Brazilians get money to drill deep water while our workers in Louisiana are sitting at home waiting to go back to work...that evil oil.I don't know where you got your stats but i just googled stimulus and it only saved jobs that are tied into city,county state government workers you mean we the taxpayers have to bail them out every year?
I don't blame Obama for this mess as i don't blame Bush [he was never in Congress or had anything to do with past policy] but for him to continue to whine and cry blaming others for the messs he inherited is getting old.
Our problem is we no longer manufacture things that does create jobs and a tax base example Enron they speculated and bought energy credits that they sold for a profit ...they didn't produce energy or refine energy but Duke Energy does.How about Farmville on Facebook imaginary cows crops but worth a billion dollars are you kidding me.NAFTA was the start of our woes then the Chinese job give away and both parties are to blame for our job losses.Time to make America business friendly again...
Drill baby drill is modern day fool's gold, as far as job growth and energy are concerned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You wannna bring three kids into the world...fine....PAY for them.
