Hey, let's change the IRS tax rules?!?

[kensfarm]

Why doesnt' the government get off it's ass and earn some damn money itself.. ..

Hey.. I'm all for paying my fair share for what's needed to run this country.. but stop giving our money away.. lazy people.. lazy countries w/ corrupt governments(the money seems rarely to get to the poor in need).

I think the sales tax or flat tax would be workable and fair.. if we could just get the government to stop spending.. cut down on the size of the government.. and put term limits on all those elbow rubbing lifetime politicians.

 

[Doc]

Why doesnt' the government get off it's ass and earn some damn money itself.. ..

Hey.. I'm all for paying my fair share for what's needed to run this country.. but stop giving our money away.. lazy people.. lazy countries w/ corrupt governments(the money seems rarely to get to the poor in need).

I think the sales tax or flat tax would be workable and fair.. if we could just get the government to stop spending.. cut down on the size of the government.. and put term limits on all those elbow rubbing lifetime politicians.

Here here!!!! Ken for president!!!

 

[OkeeDon]

Wow. I thought I was pretty good at digging out the double-speak and hypocrisy in the Republican tax proposals, but they have exceeded my wildest imagination. This morning in my newspaper, there was an article entitled, "How two proposed tax plans could play out". It reported on two proposals by the President's Advisory Committee on Federal Tax Reform, which is the subject of this thread. The two plans analyzed are: Simplified Income Tax Plan, and Growth and Investment Plan. The analysis was done by RIA's Practical Tax Strategies, a professional tax journal according to the article.

I won't type all of the article, but here is a brief summary:

Single, no children, $30K wages, $3K contribution to IRA, standard deduction:
Current tax: $2,455
Simplified: $2,850
Growth: $2,850

Married, no children, $150K combined income, $1K dividends, $1K interest, $5K long-term capital gains, miscellaneous typical deductions:
Current: $15,406
Simplified: $23,643
Growth: $24,321

Teacher, lawyer, married, 2 children, $150K combined income, various investment income and deductions:
Current:$21,568
Simplified: $21,843
Growth: $22,521

Executive, non-working spouse, $500K income, $10K interest, $20K dividends, $200K captial gains, typical deductions for this range:
Current: $155,645
Simplified: $142,748
Growth: $151,140

Lawyer, divorced, no children, $250K wages, $150K interest, $500K captial gains, various deductions:
Current: $179,174
Simplified: $142,683
Growth: $163,350
-----------------------------------------------
My conclusions: These proposals must have been written by a bunch of divorced lawyers. As usual, there is no tax break until one gets into serious income. In fact, even for professionals earning $150,000 per year, and everyone below that level who pays taxes, there is an increase, with the young couple with no kids paying a huge 50% increase!

My long term conclusion (same as it has been for umpty-ump years): why on earth would anyone with less than a $500K income support the Republicans? It makes absolutely no sense unless you value something like "prayer in school" (which will never happen) more than you do your family's economic well-being. Can't you see that the rich fat-cats are just USING you? They don't really give a darn about your so-called moral values; they just use that as a tactic to keep you in line while they get richer. Always been that way; always will.

 

[Melensdad]

It should probably also be pointed out that those folks earning over $120,000 per year make up only about 1% of the taxpayer population. Consequently the tax breaks indicated will affect almost nobody.

It should also be pointed out that Donald Trump, who can be assumed under the above scenario to be a high income individual and someone who would therefore benefit from this proposal, came out yesterday and publicly opposed the proposal saying it would personally hurt him.

Now without the benefit of seeing the article, one would also have to wonder about a whole host of 'assumptions' on how people act under the new tax rules. It could be presumed, rationally, that new tax laws will cause new reactions by taxpayers so if these new reactions are not factored into the above information cited in the newspaper then the outcomes are simply flawed from the start.

 

[OkeeDon]

Agreed; but presumably one of the primary purposes of the proposals is to restrict one's ability to adjust tax strategies. Also, the lower one is in the food chain, the fewer opportunities are available for reacting to tax laws.

Interesting about Trump; but I think his sources of income and expense are very much different than "typical" large income earners. These proposals seem to be geared towards certain types of life styles. They would not have affected me, very much, because I didn't pay any mortgage interest, even on our second home, and I never had much investment income until I started selling properties.

 

[Melensdad]

My conclusions: These proposals must have been written by a bunch of divorced lawyers. As usual, there is no tax break until one gets into serious income. . .

My long term conclusion (same as it has been for umpty-ump years): why on earth would anyone with less than a $500K income support the Republicans? . . .

Agreed; but presumably one of the primary purposes of the proposals is to restrict one's ability to adjust tax strategies. Also, the lower one is in the food chain, the fewer opportunities are available for reacting to tax laws.

I think there are some serious flaws in the newspaper analysis and in the proposal. But to get things into perspecitve.

The ATM (alternative minimum tax) is eliminated under the proposal. That is a DEMOCRATIC hot button simply because inflation is creating more and more people who get hit with the ATM, the Dems want to do away with it. It is not a benefit for the "rich."

Sen John Breaux (LA-DEM) is co-Chairman of the committee and steered the proposal. Rep. William Frenzel (MINN-REP) is a left leaning Republican, and decidedly anti-supply sider was also a key player. Connie Mack (FLA-REP) is co-Chair, he is spending all his recent efforts on Cancer Research, not on budget or tax issues and essentially was ineffective on this committee.

The plan leaves 95% of the current tax code in place, and where it does make changes is with savings, investments, state tax deductability and mortgage deductions. The mortgage deductions are largely a hot button but mostly adversely effect high income people with high mortgages but will affect others with high mortgages as well. The ability to manipulate your way through the maze of tax codes will remain since 95% of the current tax code is unchanged.


FWIW my personal opinion is that this proposal is D.O.A. and illconcieved. It is, however a proposal, and it is making its way up capital hill.
[font=times, serif][/font]

 

[kensfarm]

"FWIW my personal opinion is that this proposal is D.O.A. and illconcieved."

Sometimes I think the current government in place is the master of rubbernecking the public.. are they purposely re-focusing our attention by hitting on sensitive type issues?

Social Securty reform
Tax reform

Besides the war, Haliburton contracts, classified leaks, corrupt politcal leaders stuffing their own pockets.. there seems to be a lot they'd like us to be distracted from.


*******************
"Here here!!!! Ken for president!!! "

I'd be the first President actually born in Washington D.C.!

 

[Melensdad]

Sometimes I think the current government in place is the master of rubbernecking the public.. are they purposely re-focusing our attention by hitting on sensitive type issues?

Again just my personal opinion, but no I really don't think they put together a bi-partisian tax reform committee about a year ago specifically to come up with a stupid plan so they could unveil it this year to distract us from the current problems.

My suspecion is that they really thought & hoped they would come up with a new plan. The problem is they came up with a plan that was guaranteed to anger most people so quickly that the people would not even dig into the details to see how it would affect them. That is why I think the plan is DOA. The reason I think it is illconceived is because it leaves over 95% of the current tax code in place. I'd have to guess if you, me, and the other folks here on FF got locked into a room wtih the Tax Code, and a mandate to fix it, the first thing we would all agree on would be to throw the current code away. We might then argue over things like Flat Income Taxes, Progressive Income Taxes, National Sales Tax, or Value Added Tax, but we would very likely begin with a clean slate. Unfortunately that is not what this committee chose to do.

 

[Junkman]

How can they start with a clean slate. All the special interest groups that paid for their tax breaks in campaign money for the past 50 years would be wiped out. Sports team owners might have to start paying taxes like the rest of us, along with the others that are classified as "entertainers" would also be effected. If they were to eliminate the special interest groups that have preferential treatment under the tax code, then the system wouldn't be broken. Sale with Social Security. If it were to only pay those that have paid into the system, then they would have plenty of money, however, the government has seen fit to put people onto the payments that never have paid into the system, such as people with disabilities. Don't know if they fixed it yet, but prisoners are / were entitled to Social Security Disability benefits since they were mentally unstable and unable to work. 60 Minutes did a program about it a few years ago. Social Security should be like unemployment insurance. If you don't qualify by working, then you don't collect. My biggest fear is that they will eventually start a qualification means test before you can collect. That will translate into some workers paying in, but never getting anything out. I believe that this would be unfair. If you pay in, you should get something out, even if you are not in need of the "extra" income.
The other thing that needs to be fixed is the pension compensation for Congress. No way should you get a pension after just one term. They should also pay Social Security taxes and get what benefits the rest of Social Security recipients get....
Junk....

 

[OkeeDon]

Bob, just a side comment about the "bipartison" nature of the committee; you don't seriously consider John Breaux a serious Democrat, do you?

 

[Melensdad]

Bob, just a side comment about the "bipartison" nature of the committee; you don't seriously consider John Breaux a serious Democrat, do you?

Don, I think John Breaux's record stands for itself. He is clearly a Blue Dog Democrat on economic/business issues, however he is also a very partisian Democrat on social issues and very clearly opposed Republicans on many many issues. No question that Sen Breaux would have lined up as a Ronald Reagan Supply Sider, but I think he can easily be given credit for steering the Tax Reform propsal to where it ended up. There is no question that he would be the driving force behind the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax that is part of the proposal.

Yes, he is a Democrat who supports gun rights, and yes he supports the oil industry, but he also is a social liberal who takes up the torch of the Democratic platform and he carries it with pride.

I would encourage you to dig up his voting record. He is no liberal. Last time I checked, Kennedy, Biden & Kerry do not require lockstep obedience on all causes. He, however, is a moderate Democrat who swings left on many issues and right on a few of them.

Are you suggesting that ALL Democrats have to be of the liberal wing and that there is no room for centrists and moderates in the party?

 

[OkeeDon]

No, I'm suggesting that no Southern Democrat was ever a Democrat. Many of them have shown their true colors and converted to the Republican party; that's probably the only reason the Republicans have the power they do. Back when they were nomonally counted as Democrats, they were responsible for the Democratic majority. Same people, same agenda, different party.

I have no bought that some of what you say is true; there are also left-leaning Republicans who have similar proclivities. It's probably a lot more correct to say that there are centrists in both parties. However, despite the fact that I technically live in the South, I don't have a whole lot of respect for most Southern politicians regardless of their party. There is an "attitude" in the South that just grates on me.

 

[Cityboy]

There is an "attitude" in the South that just grates on me.

Why is that Don? Because we don't give a damn how you did it up north?



That one sentence speaks volumes. Nuff said.

 

[Melensdad]

No, I'm suggesting that no Southern Democrat was ever a Democrat . . . there are also left-leaning Republicans who have similar proclivities. It's probably a lot more correct to say that there are centrists in both parties.

Don, taken to the logical conclusion, it seems like you are saying that the only true Democrats are the Godless left wing quasi-socialist tie-dyed hippy tree huggers . . . and . . . the only true Republicans are the jack booted baby eating knee jerk lock stepping decendants of Attila the Hun.

When it comes to discussions of TAX CODE, I think a Democrat who is pushing his party's adjenda of abolishing the A.M.T. is still a Democrat, even if he is a supporter of Big Oil. I also think a left leaning Republican who doesn't follow his party's platform 100% is still a Republican, and I think it is fair to say that both parties occupy a large part of the CENTER of the spectrum.

 

[OkeeDon]

I am having a little difficulty following your logic that it's the Dems pushing for the abolition of the AMT. OK, because incomes has been rising (primarily during the Clinton years), more Dems may be affected by the AMT. But, by a huge, huge margin, the vast majority of Dems have not even heard of the AMT. It doesn't make sense that the Dems would suddenly start pushing to get rid of something that affects very few of them. Especially since the policy was enacted originally to get at least some tax out of the fat cats who were avoiding any payment, and still affects them the most. Sounds to me like the GOP was bleating in the wind against this tax for years and years, with no one having any sympathy. Then, maybe one Dem somewhere mentioned that someone he knew might have been affected, and all the Fox News types jumped on it, turned it into their usual doublespeak, and are now claiming that it's the Dems who have wanted to abolish it all along. I think that's just so much bushwah.

 

[Melensdad]

Don, I believe it is actually a position of the National Democratic party to do away with AMT. I strongly suspect that more Dems have heard about it and are affected by it than you think.

You seem to believe that Dems are all low income and Repubs are all high, but that is far from the truth.

The Alternative Minimum Tax is estimated to raise the taxes of 21 million people in 2006 but 52 million by 2015. When the 1986 tax reform failed to clean up the code and many zero taxpayers remained, the AMT was put into place. Because of simple inflation AMT covers so many upper-middle-income taxpayers that its elimination has become one tax cut favored by the Democratic party.

While you seem to believe the AMT is a Republican idea, I think that Bush has squandered a heck of an opportunity. No question that Repubs had tax reform as a major issue for the past 10 to 12 years. This year we actually could have made good on doing something positive, and this year we could have benefited from it. But Bush wasted the opportunity to put forth a Flat Tax or a National Sales Tax or a similar proposal and instead named a committee that put forth a proposal that painted him into a corner. How can he ignore the proposals of his highly touted committee? He screwed up (again) and even you don't see it this time!

 

[OkeeDon]

He screwed up (again) and even you don't see it this time!

Oh, I saw it. I've gotten so used to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot, that after Ken Starr I juist don't pay much attention to it, any more. I used to think that if the GOP kept on pulling so many dumb moves they would start losing elections. Then, I realized that GOP voters actually believe all the doublespeak about how everything is someone else's fault. Now I recognize that no matter how many stupid boners the GOP pulls, their supporters will think they walk on water.

As for the extremes of each party, or whether the respectives parties are for the richest or the poorest, those boundaries are helpful in determining attitudes. If the intent of the extreme left is to attempt to help poor people, regardless of how poorly that help is executed, then I see their intentions as compassionate. If the intent of the extreme right is to line the pockets of greedy fat cats, I see there intentions as selfish. In my world, compassionate is better than selfish.

Now, I can work backwards towards the center. If left is good and right is bad, then a little left is better than a little right. The key to understanding is to determine the intentions of the extremes; they influence the proclivities of the moderates. Thus, I spend more time defining the extremes with the tacit understanding that the moderates are affected to a lesser degree. I also understand that moderates may slip back and forth; I tend to be more fiscally conservative than the current administration. I know that you'll raise your eyebrows at that; but I define fiscal conservatism as "pay as you go".

 

[nixon]

As for the extremes of each party, or whether the respectives parties are for the richest or the poorest, those boundaries are helpful in determining attitudes. If the intent of the extreme left is to attempt to help poor people, regardless of how poorly that help is executed, then I see their intentions as compassionate. If the intent of the extreme right is to line the pockets of greedy fat cats, I see there intentions as selfish. In my world, compassionate is better than selfish.


Don Intentions are indeed to be commended . But results are what really count . All the good intentions in the world haven't helped one "poor,disenfranchised(sp) " soul find an improvement in His,or Her life . We've thrown tons of money at the "war on poverty ", Better education ,and a higher standard of living for all . So far it hasn't done a lot .
Maybe if We just demanded a bit of personal accountability from our citizens ,things would change . I do see a need to take care of our citizens that need help . But, it shouldn't be a thing that goes on for generations. Our republic was never meant to be a Utopian State . We were guarenteed a chance of success . But it was never guarenteed that each of us would succeed..
OBTW , registered life long Democrat here . John

 

[nixon]

Oh yes Don , one other thing .... You seemed to state(in a previous post) that only the Right wing was capable of name calling . And that the left was more Genteel than that . How do You explain BUSHWA ??? The term is actually Bourgeois .
But then, I expect You knew that all along John

 

[Melensdad]

If the intent of the extreme left is to attempt to help poor people, regardless of how poorly that help is executed, then I see their intentions as compassionate. If the intent of the extreme right is to line the pockets of greedy fat cats, I see there intentions as selfish. In my world, compassionate is better than selfish.

Hmmmm. . . I never realized before that at my core I am selfish or that you thought that way about me. And since most of the folks I know do the things I do, then I guess they too are selfish. What a selfish lot we are donating our time, efforts and energies (and dare I add we also donate $$$) to help others. I am fortunate to have a lot, so perhaps it appears that I do alot, but the reality what I do is often dwarfed by the efforts of others I see who are my friends and who also have a lot, so then I feel guilty and do some more somewhere else (I guess that would be my Catholic upbringing that tosses that "guilt" feeling into play?).

Funny thing about compassion. Some folks define it as GIVING THINGS and others don't. I'm not one who does; strikes me that giving opportunity is the compassionate choice. Goes back to the teachings I've heard in church and a dozen other places.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.

I tend to think of the Democrats as folks who feed people for a day.
I tend to think of the Republicans as folks who provide the opportunity for people to feed themselves.

I tend to think that most receivers of charity don't like taking it and would rather do for themselves.

I tend to think the Republican model of compassion is the real compassion.

 

[OkeeDon]

Nixon, good points except the one about nobody ever being helped -- give me a few seconds and I can find you hundreds of personal stories, stories so typical that they represent thousands, if not millions. How about one? Colin Powell said he could never have achieved what he did without affirmative action...

Bob, you're trying to put me on that guilt trip by making it personal. I know what you do.

My point, if you examine it, was that the extremes define the limits, and the closer to the center one is, the less the extreme applies. In other words, you're just a little bit selfish. After all, in the Old Testament, God told whats-his-name (too lazy to look it up) to give away all his worldly goods. You still got some.

So do I, but I'm probably more likely to give away what I can'tafford, so that puts me just a little left of center. You appear, from your posts, to be in favor of spending cuts for things that truly help people, in order to "keep more of your own money", so that puts you in the selfish category. Sorry about that, but I didn't make the rules.

It's not too late, though, I think you have the potential to see the light...

 

[Melensdad]

Don, talking with you is like talking with my parrish priest. He misses half the point all the time to make his story work. The advantage you have is that you are not in front of me and an entire congregation.

Last time he disparaged corporate America at the pulpit I grabbed his sorry ass out on the front steps of the church and gave him the riot act while the entire rest of the church filed out of the doors behind me so that everyone could hear "the rest of the story." Silly man. BTW the priest is coming over to cook dinner at my house next Friday night for a group of 11 of us. Last time we got together for dinner I nailed him about Mr Kerry, a known abortion supporter, defying the church and taking communion. I still can't figure out why he allows himself to be caught within 100' of me.

As for your misguided point about why I might support tax cuts, you calmly forget that I am one of those who strongly advocates private charity. It might be argued that the combination of taxes and charity should be the real measure. However with regard to the government, I think we need to look at all sorts of things we should not spend money on and cut those things (PBS, NPR, social security, crop supports all spring to mind quickly). As for all those wonderful and charming programs that 'actually help' people, well I think many of those only provide help when they give a hand up, rather than a hand out. Those that give hand outs, really do harm, they create situations of dependancy and actually hold people down. Somehow I can't rationally believe people can think those are good things.

 

[nixon]

[QUOTE


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Man I feel like such a fool now !! I always thought the quote was
"give a man a fishand You feed Him for a Day . Teach a man to fish and He skips work ,sits in His boat and drinks beer " John