Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2013, 10:52 AM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,671,868 times
Reputation: 13868

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rburnett View Post
You do realize that all these programs (aside from the ACA) were in place before Obama took office, right?

The welfare spending that you're referring to accounts for all of 1% of Federal outlays.
It doesn't matter, a good president would have decreased the outlay for welfare because more people had jobs. Obama, being the bad president that he is increased welfare handouts exponentially.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:18 AM
 
49 posts, read 86,449 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Why is there a deduction for dependents? There should be no difference for married or not (that would remove most of the government's interest in gay marriage).

I cannot fathom why we are allowed to deduct state taxes paid on our federal returns.

.
Your argument is strange. Why would the government be interested in gay marriage if that would reduce their revenue?

Also, why should I have to pay tax on the tax that I paid? this is double taxation, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:26 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,392,179 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. False for state and local taxes, as well. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy posts these effective tax rates for the total of all local, state, and federal taxes:



Furthermore, as already posted in this forum, the bottom 20% are getting a $4.03 return in local and state government services for every $1 they pay in local and state taxes. They get a $14.76 return in federal government services for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.

Yes. You have previously posted figures showing the high negative effective federal tax rates of the bottom 20 percent. State and local taxes are far different. We know - and I'm confident you would not dispute - that the bottom quintile pays a disproportionate share of state sintaxes. Sales and property taxes are difficult to avoid and aren't progressive so where do you get the idea that state and local taxes are progressive?

And once again, I reject your broad brush which lumps in law-abiding childless adults - who are at the bottom of the handout chain - with criminals, druggies, and families-with-children who are sucking up the vast majority of those state and local tax dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:35 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,392,179 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
I wish that we could better tailor our various tax payments to support the programs we approve of. In addition to not supporting public schools, I'd also not want to fund welfare, Section 8 and food stamp programs. Also certain military conflicts.

On the other hand, there should be minimum taxes and each individual selecting what programs they support and how much they want to go towards those programs. I would want my tax dollars used towards road and bridge maintenance.

I think that residential property taxes punish those who manage their money well enough to buy a residence. Renters should also pay a tax to support the basic city and town services they use. Families with children should pay towards whatever public or private schools they use. Parents are willing to pay crazy high prices for a house in a city or town with good public schools, instead they should be paying less for that house and more towards that particular public school's use fee for each child and each year they are in the school system.

City public transportation should not be subsidized and with such cheap use fares. City jobs pay well and they can afford to spend half the value of an hour of minimum wage towards each ride. If you are jobless, then don't ride the public bus or train just for kicks. Leave the seat for a working person.

Renters already pay through the nose, half the states tax rental property more than they tax owner-pccupied homes, plus renters on average pay way more than homeowners for equivalent housing. (Overall, renters pay more for housing on average while getting far less housing for their dollar.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:40 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,799,117 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Renters already pay through the nose, half the states tax rental property more than they tax owner-pccupied homes, plus renters on average pay way more than homeowners for equivalent housing. (Overall, renters pay more for housing on average while getting far less housing for their dollar.)
Because they for one did not save up the initial down payment, plus they are not paying for up keep or fluctuation in value.

When rent goes down, renters get a lower monthy payment while someone who owns the house does not get a lower mortgage payment. It is inherently risky to have a mortgage, not so much to be a renter, thus the premium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:51 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,392,179 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Because they for one did not save up the initial down payment, plus they are not paying for up keep or fluctuation in value.

When rent goes down, renters get a lower monthy payment while someone who owns the house does not get a lower mortgage payment. It is inherently risky to have a mortgage, not so much to be a renter, thus the premium.

??? HowTF do you expect someone making $8/hr to save up a down payment? (Median renter income is 1/2 median homeowner income.) Since WhenTF does rent go down? (I've never seen it.)

It is inherently risky to rent, because renters must always pay current (usually rising, and rarely falling) rents - this is why rents on average are lower than mortgage payments, even though renters generally get much less housing than homeowners. The homeowner in a McMansion gets to keep the same mortgage payment he had when he bought his house 15 years ago while the renter in a studio apartment pays twice as much rent today than he did 15 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,799,117 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? HowTF do you expect someone making $8/hr to save up a down payment? Since WhenTF does rent go down? (I've never seen it.)

It is inherently risky to rent, because renters must always pay current (usually rising, and rarely falling) rents - this is why rents on average are lower than mortgage payments, even though renters generally get much less housing than homeowners. The homeowner in a McMansion gets to keep the same mortgage payment he had when he bought his house 15 years ago while the renter in a studio apartment pays twice as much rent today than he did 15 years ago.
Rents fell drastically in 08. Rents are generally tied to home values, if home to up, rents go up, if homes to down, rents to down.

If someone only make $8 an hour they cannot afford rent.

Owning a home requires a certain level of income. If someone wants to own a home, the need an appropriate job to allow them to do so. Home ownership is not a gauruntee. Plus those home values can just as easily fall as rise leaving the home owner on the hook. Home ownership is inherently more risky than renting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,096,671 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanceD View Post
Your argument is strange. Why would the government be interested in gay marriage if that would reduce their revenue?

Also, why should I have to pay tax on the tax that I paid? this is double taxation, isn't it?
The government shouldn't be interested in marriage. That taxes are different for married vs. single people makes it a government issue. I want the government out of the marriage business. Until they remove marriage from the tax code they will always be interested in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,767,929 times
Reputation: 6663
Originally Posted by steven_h
The GOP comes up with a flat tax every election cycle? Proof?

However, you're all for the DNC constantly raising taxes on the so-called wealthy, only to turn around and hammer the middle class, while giving waivers and creating loopholes to their uber-wealthy constituents.

I support a flat fair tax based on thresholds of net income. I would also support a net worth tax. If a wealthy person is hoarding liquid assets, it should be taxed. This would force them to circulate the cash to avoid having to pay taxes on it. If they decide to move to another country to protect those assets, then they'll have to pay a hefty exit tax. The economy would thrive, and the wealth disparity would slow or shrink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
OK so we live in America, and there is a price of admission. The question is this: What should that price be?

I believe that all discussion of taxation BEGINS with the premise that what we earn belongs to us, and that we pay a price of admission to whatever government entity in which we live. What that price should be is open to debate.

However, my own opinion is that if we pay more that 50% to government at all levels total, we are slaves.
I would not be complacent about a 50% tax rate on any level of income. I live in Cali where we are taxed to the tune of about 15% at the state and local levels when all taxes (sales, energy, network... etc.) are figured in. Most people are well in the hole long before Fed taxes are figured in.

I'd be up for a total combined maximum of 35% for the wealthiest (over $1M year net) and dropping incrementally as net income drops. Anyone earning the state average would be on the lowest rung of Fed taxation (something like 10-15%) and anyone making less than 75% of the state average wouldn't pay any Fed tax at all. Social Security would have to be revamped to offer a savings account choice, and any funds that have been diverted over the years would have to be returned.

Corporate loopholes would have to be done away with, and standard traditional deductions used. Any corporation hoarding cash offshore would be offered a one time discount rate to bring it back, or suffer a steep penalty. Corporate taxes would be a flat percentage based on a global average of the top 20 industrial countries corporate tax rates. Probably in the neighborhood of 26% or so, with no loopholes. This would insure that we would remain competitive. I would also like to see an incentive program for foreign/global companies to create jobs here by offering low or no taxation for a set period of time from establishing themselves here.

These are very simple, off the cuff ideas, that would have to be tweaked after much accounting, projecting, and number crunching. But any fair tax solution would be better than the mess we have now.

Last edited by steven_h; 10-03-2013 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,767,929 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
It doesn't matter, a good president would have decreased the outlay for welfare because more people had jobs. Obama, being the bad president that he is increased welfare handouts exponentially.
This is the nature of the socialist beast. ALL purely socialized nations eventually fall under the weight of their own self-imposed burdens.

Look how fast food stamp usage doubled, and unemployment maxed, and disability abused. If people can earn more for doing nothing, they'll choose to do nothing. On average a family of four can bring in nearly $50k a year if they tap all social programs. The average income for a working family of four is $53k.

Why should anyone work for less?

Our leaders have shown they know nothing about fiscal prudence. The very people who cried about how G.W. Bush was bankrupting the US, are strangely quiet as spendthrift Obama makes Bush look like a penny pincher.

In just 5 years;
poverty rates have climbed
income has dropped
welfare (not including SS/Medi*) needs have climbed
participation rates have dropped to 40 year lows
and on and on and on... even though they are pumping $85B a month into the system, for the very purpose of propping up a stagnant economy. I'd say they are repeating the experiment every month expecting a different result, which is the definition of... ?

And all this is touted as some kind of success? Unfortunately many of the younger citizens have had their bars lowered so far that complete failure is something they seem to celebrate.

Last edited by steven_h; 10-03-2013 at 01:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top