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 04-15-2015, 06:03 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,365,659 times
Reputation: 17261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Get rid of all the deductions.

We don't need to be encouraging child birth.

Lower the rates and maybe have the first 15k tax free and everything else after that gets 10%.
10% will not fund the government. Lets get real.

I agree on the 15K part, but also feel it should be pegged to inflation.

And trust me, the standard deduction for a child is not encouraging children. In a way it follows the rational behind your 15K-don't tax that which is necessary to survive.

Also mind you-this is separate from the EITC which can pay you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2015, 06:11 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,727,707 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I use the home mortgage deduction-probably the biggest deduction for those that use it. On a pretty significant mortgage. I'm ok with it going if we pull a ton of the other ones out with it too.
Back in 2011, if you have an adjusted gross income of over $166,800, your mortgage interest starts to get phased out. For every $100 of income over $166,800 you lose $3 of itemized deduction X 33.3% up to a maximum loss of 80 percent of your itemized deductions. Talk about another overly complicated rule the IRS/government has implemented.

Mortgage Interest Deduction Limit and Income Phaseout | Financial Samurai
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 06:17 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,365,659 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Back in 2011, if you have an adjusted gross income of over $166,800, your mortgage interest starts to get phased out. For every $100 of income over $166,800 you lose $3 of itemized deduction X 33.3% up to a maximum loss of 80 percent of your itemized deductions. Talk about another overly complicated rule the IRS/government has implemented.

Mortgage Interest Deduction Limit and Income Phaseout | Financial Samurai
From your link:
Quote:
Example: You make $266,800 and you have $50,000 in mortgage interest deductions. Take $266,800 – $166,800 = $100,000. Then take $100,000 X 3% = $3,000. Finally, take $3,000 X 33.3% = $999. You can now only deduct $49,001 ($50,000 – $999) from your income instead of originally $50,000. - See more at: Mortgage Interest Deduction Limit and Income Phaseout | Financial Samurai
LOL. cry me a river. Its not that complex, and generally the software or your accountant can deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 10:41 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,727,707 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
From your link:


LOL. cry me a river. Its not that complex, and generally the software or your accountant can deal with it.
LOL, it's you liberals that are doing all the crying. Waaaa someone makes more than me. Waaaa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 10:46 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,819,598 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
10% will not fund the government. Lets get real.

I agree on the 15K part, but also feel it should be pegged to inflation.

And trust me, the standard deduction for a child is not encouraging children. In a way it follows the rational behind your 15K-don't tax that which is necessary to survive.

Also mind you-this is separate from the EITC which can pay you.
10% would be enough with no deductions and a broader tax base.

Eitc should be removed with the removal of deductions.

We would be basically doing a basic income model without paying people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 11:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,990 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13693
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
What's with all the "Romney this" and "Romney that" ? Most people with a wealth of money have trusts.
Including Hillary Clinton, the Dems' 2016 frontrunner.

Wealthy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Would Have To Pay - Bloomberg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 11:10 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,365,659 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
10% would be enough with no deductions and a broader tax base.

Eitc should be removed with the removal of deductions.

We would be basically doing a basic income model without paying people.
You DO know a basic income does in fact actually require paying people....making your last comment....kind of bizzarre.

And sorry, no. currently our government funding is about 22% of GDP. 10% would not in fact be enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Utah
546 posts, read 408,622 times
Reputation: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
On the books they did but let's remember that most people didn't get paid at the top bracket either. Most people don't even make enough to get taxed in the 30% tax brackets (under about 180K a year for a single.) It's only about a 5-10%. What I wonder is if the people complaining about taxes being too high on the rich now actually said so under Bush when it was what 35% on someone making about 350K a year (again as a single)?
The tax code is pretty progressive as it is. The few people who make it into the higher brackets actually pay a 35+% marginal rate.

People who say we can raise rates on the wealthy as much as we want, because "we used to tax them at 90%" totally fail to take into account the ways the accountants and lawyers found for them to escape taxation on large amounts of income. The 90% was basically an illusion and not to be taken serious.

A real 90% rate would be a disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 11:23 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,365,659 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Which I will have to remember as a new person to point too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 07:08 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,607,699 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Yes, they can adopt their own currency. No, the currency has to be backed by the goods and services. If they print $100 trillion and don't actually produce anything, it doesn't mean anything.
So, what would be our limit, if we can't produce beyond what is backed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
10% will not fund the government. Lets get real.
Not according to Opin-Yunated, he keeps saying taxes aren't necessary for the government to operate. Do you agree with him?
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 07:49 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