Thiebear Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Pick one or put forth another: Repeal the Bush Taxes go back to Clinton times Keep taxes the same Go with a 20% across the board Go with a 20% above 20k a year Have the States do the taxes and then pay for DC... you can then decide where to live based on that... Go with a National Sales Tax of 10%... other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 I like the States take the taxes and pay for the Govt... You want to see class warfare, wait till CA/NY got the 800 billion bill and freaked out that Arkansas only paid 12 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 5% vat flat tax of 18% for all earnings above $20k. No deductions, except $5k per child dependent. Eliminate the following gov't depts: Energy Education Commerce Small Business Administration HUD Agriculture NEA Phase out Social Security (at least partially) with privatised retirement accounts. Higher medicare deductibles for wealthy Americans End all subsidies for agriculture, exports, etc. Eliminate legislation for oxygenated fuels. Kill Ethanol and MTBE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by riggo-toni 5% vat flat tax of 18% for all earnings above $20k. No deductions, except $5k per child dependent. Eliminate the following gov't depts: Energy Education Commerce Small Business Administration HUD Agriculture NEA Phase out Social Security (at least partially) with privatised retirement accounts. Higher medicare deductibles for wealthy Americans End all subsidies for agriculture, exports, etc. Eliminate legislation for oxygenated fuels. Kill Ethanol and MTBE!!! This would go over on Capitol hill like a fart in church Energy- It's needed for scientific research and to keep companies from price fixing ala California circa 2001. If we could trust big business to behave, we wouldn't need it, but since they try to screw over the consumer every chance the get, we need to have oversight. Education- You must think the Smithsonian should be gone, because they're under the Dept. of Edu. (although they have their own line item budget.) How will we pay for education if we get rid the department? You can't just cut education without having an alternative funding plan. Any ideas, you've got my ear. Commerce- They could be trimmed, but not cut. How would you monitor government imports/exports/GDP and a host of other economic indicators without the BEA? They also contain NIST, Patents, NOAA, telecommunications and a host of other branches that would disappear. Not a good thing. SBA- Small business is one of the foundations our country was based on. This helps hard working Americans start their own business and contribute to society in an exponential way. I gues you want to end entrepreneurship in America huh. This is the one Administration which actually generates more revenues vis-a-vis tax revenue increases. HUD- Section 8 can be revamped with stipulations tied to the program, it's a total of 15 billion, not a hell of a lot of money, but concessions need to be made. We need the federal backing of mortgages with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc. They help keep the real estate market stable. Agriculture- Well I agree with you on subsidies. Why we pay people for not producing is beyond me. NEA- a budget of $277 million doesn't amount to a hill of beans. So I take it you're against education huh. Phase out Social Security (at least partially) with privatised retirement accounts. Agreed Higher medicare deductibles for wealthy Americans Agreed End all subsidies for agriculture, exports, etc. Agreed Eliminate legislation for oxygenated fuels. Kill Ethanol and MTBE!!! Agreed I think before you say you just want to eliminate an entire department, you have to look at the department, see what they do and propose cuts this way. When a blanket statement is made, it comes across as you're against everything in the department, and I personally don't think you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear Pick one or put forth another: Repeal the Bush Taxes go back to Clinton times Keep taxes the same Go with a 20% across the board Go with a 20% above 20k a year Have the States do the taxes and then pay for DC... you can then decide where to live based on that... Go with a National Sales Tax of 10%... other... Other, repeal the top 2% bracket tax break to three years ago, but stick with the 98% cuts for middle and lower income Americans. People making 250K would only be taxed at the high rate above $200K, not too bad for the last 50K to be taxed at a higher rate, but still well below 50%. i believe it was at 36% vs. 28% if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 I think any tax policy has to be married to ways to compensate for the changes in the system we now have in place. Obviously, no one would seriously consider our existing tax structure that penalizes people for accomplishing more in their profession measured by their wages as a fair system. You will obviously have more wealthy people pay more actual dollars into the system if the tax system was made more fair either by flattening the rates, or eliminating it and going with a national sales tax. I do think we should get back to our roots in this country by eliminating most of the taxes we currently have. There is some merit to a national sales tax, but ONLY if EVERY citizen were required to pay and only if every item you purchase were included at the same rate. This system would be a beautiful one, but, sadly, liberals would screw it up by saying food essentials must not be taxed, unless you make over $100,000 then you should pay a tax, and a pontoon boat should be taxed triple and it would all get screwed up. My tax reform though would not start immediately with income taxes. It would start with payroll taxes for social security and medicare taxes. I would immediately tell corporations they no longer have to pay a dime for employee social security. The government has long made corporations match what their employees pay in social security taxes. This is unarmed robbery and utterly unnecessary. The current social security system is fatally flawed. It's a pyramid scheme the government would call illegal if anyone else ran it, but since they do, they pretend it isn't. My social security reform would be very simple. First, it is voluntary to some degree. If a single filer or married taxpayers provide for their own retirement sufficiently through personal IRA accounts and 401K accounts with their work, they will not have to pay a dime in social security taxes. Make the threshold something like $7,500 for a single person and $12,500 a year for a couple. As long as they are putting that money away, they owe nothing to social security. Once they fall below that, they have to pay into social security. Of course liberals who think it's RIGHT that one generation pay for the next won't like this. That's why liberals would have to be taught that an individual should pay for himself. The system would no longer put all social security dollars into a bucket the government can use to pretend it is not running as high a deficit as it is. The system would be reformed so that every dollar you put into social security would go directly into a personal account that the government can't touch and you can't either. That money would no longer make less than a percent interest. It would be put into the market. Now, here's the catch. How do we get from this reform point and still pay for those who are going to retire before it really kicks in? Simple. Limit the investment options to EXCLUSIVELY government bonds. Government bonds are largely guaranteed to make money over time at a rate far surpassing 1 percent. The money in those bonds will allow the government to use that cash to pay out existing retirees. And in 20 years (less really) when these bonds mature having made a rate greater than inflation, the system will actually become something worth having. Now we go back to business. We know business will be getting millions back (at larger companies) and thousands back at smaller companies for not having to match payroll taxes of their employees. To appease liberals who think it's bad when others make money, we will do the following. We will mandate that the money they would have had to pay for an employee can ONLY be used for the following things: -- 401K matching to help get more people off social security. -- Capital investment which immediately puts money into the economy. -- Direct hires of new employees or raises to existing ones to increase job opportunities. In one swoop of the Mills for President pen, we've saved social security, put massive amounts of money into the economy and provided for current retirees as well as future ones who aren't able to save the threshold on their own. This same plan would be in place for Medicare save that I would get rid of Medicare altogether and instead make every citizen pay in to a personal account, likewise invested in government interest earning bonds, that they can use to draw upon when they retire to purchase a health insurance plan from any company they wish. Having a legacy secured as the man who saved social security, I will then push for across the board tax cuts for federal income taxpayers and ONLY them, because, only they deserve it and can possibly receive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics Other, repeal the top 2% bracket tax break to three years ago, but stick with the 98% cuts for middle and lower income Americans. People making 250K would only be taxed at the high rate above $200K, not too bad for the last 50K to be taxed at a higher rate, but still well below 50%. i believe it was at 36% vs. 28% if I remember correctly. Once again, Chomerics, 98 percent doesn't pay taxes. Effectively 50 percent don't pay a dime (that's not true, since they pay 4 percent of the burden, but for rounding sake let's go with it since it's closer than your numbers) which means that 50 percent of the country did not receive any cuts three years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Thew, If you find any value to a particular department that you want to shut down, you can roll that function into another department you are keeping in place. If you cherish the Smithsonian, then roll it into the Department of the Interior, for example. That kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Higher medicare deductibles for wealthy Americans Absolutely!!! They've got more... they should pay more!!! Same goes for Taxes!!!! Hip...Hip... Hooray!!!! :doh: "All men are created equal... unless one's wallet is thicker than another's." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin Absolutely!!! They've got more... they should pay more!!! Same goes for Taxes!!!! Hip...Hip... Hooray!!!! :doh: "All men are created equal... unless one's wallet is thicker than another's." It is amazing, isn't it, Cskin? The envy people have for those who have more. When I was poor I never thought it was a good idea to put my hand in someone else's pocket. Now I'm doing pretty well and I want you to keep your hands out of mine. Don't equal the playing field with those who are more successful by taking from them. Equal it by achieving more yourself. Frankly, I think those who are in favor of taking more from the wealthy are simply those who are too lazy and stupid to actually make it on their own and want a surrogate daddy to help them through life. Let me set my family up and those who are dear to me with the money I have and make. Let me direct who it goes to as I'll pick those who are deserving. Quit taking from me to give to a system that gives extra cash everytime someone who is poor pops out a child. Lord knows, a woman on welfare with 6 kids is more deserving of my money than I am, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 I like your Social Security Idea Art, it was actually funny, when I was working on my undergrad ( I want to say in 98 or 99), I turned in a paper on pretty much the same idea in my economics class. My professor (who worked for the government as an economist) gave me a B, said nice idea, but to radical......I thought to myself, thats what Social Security needs, are radical fundumental changes. Fact is, as long as Social Security is the governments piggy bank......ain't nothing going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 If i had to go with a national plan: Cut all loopholes except Charity.. 20% across the board over 20k... This would bring us back into the red within a few years or... All Charities would be FULLY funded either way its a win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Art Once again, Chomerics, 98 percent doesn't pay taxes. Effectively 50 percent don't pay a dime (that's not true, since they pay 4 percent of the burden, but for rounding sake let's go with it since it's closer than your numbers) which means that 50 percent of the country did not receive any cuts three years ago. Art, look at taxes as a percentage of the person's salary, instead of the overall percentage of the US governments tax revenues. If you do this AND you add in all the other BS like medicaid, SSI, state income taxes etc, you will find out that on a percentage basis, the lower 50% income is in fact paying more than the upper 50% in taxes in terms of a % base. Now, tell me how is this a fair system? The current tax basis, places the burden of paying taxes from the rich to the poor, it's an unfair system espically when you consider the government cut state funding as well. The poor had to pay for the increase in everyday products which take up a much larger % of their salary than somebody making over 200K a year. Damn, I have to go I'll try to finish the post later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 Theresa H Kerry: 700k Arnold Swartzenagger: 9million? Thiebear: 7k I feel like I got off lucky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics Art, look at taxes as a percentage of the person's salary, instead of the overall percentage of the US governments tax revenues. If you do this AND you add in all the other BS like medicaid, SSI, state income taxes etc, you will find out that on a percentage basis, the lower 50% income is in fact paying more than the upper 50% in taxes in terms of a % base. Now, tell me how is this a fair system? The current tax basis, places the burden of paying taxes from the rich to the poor, it's an unfair system espically when you consider the government cut state funding as well. The poor had to pay for the increase in everyday products which take up a much larger % of their salary than somebody making over 200K a year. Damn, I have to go I'll try to finish the post later. Chomerics, The tax cuts that were given out were ONLY given out to federal income taxpayers. It was not given to payroll taxpayers or medicare taxpayers or state taxpayers. I would be only too happy to remove those charges from the total, but, as long as you pointedly address the Bush tax cuts, you can not continue to tell a false story that 100 percent of the people received cuts. Only approximately 50 percent did. That 50 percent happens to be 100 percent of American income taxpayers however. Now, for your comment that a lower income person is paying more from a percentage standpoint in combined federal and state taxes, this may be true, and yet, it remains an unfair system to those who continue to pay more. You see, if your combined tax bill is $7,000 a year in all taxes you pay and that happens to be 40 percent of your income, it's still true that the system which requires that I pay $50,000 in taxes, even if that's only 35 percent of my total income is remarkably unfair to me. Why? Because I'm paying more than seven times what the other person is. And, further, the person on the lower end has a greater need to pay the medicare and social security taxes than I do because they will need that money to draw upon when they retire where I will not and therefore should not be forced to pay for their retirement when I have mine to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics This would go over on Capitol hill like a fart in church I never expected this to pass; it's simply what I want Energy- It's needed for scientific research and to keep companies from price fixing ala California circa 2001. If we could trust big business to behave, we wouldn't need it, but since they try to screw over the consumer every chance the get, we need to have oversight. The energy dept was created by Carter to deal with nuclear buildup and the energy crisis. Well, the arms race is over, and oversight of plants can go back to the NRC. Price fixing can be overseen by other institutions, ie the SEC. Most of the $$$ for the Dept of Enrgy goes into Superfund - that sinkhole of a failed environmental cleanup plan where nearly all of the $$ has gone into litigation, NOT actual cleanup. These cases are far more efficiently handled by the EPA. Education- You must think the Smithsonian should be gone, because they're under the Dept. of Edu. (although they have their own line item budget.) How will we pay for education if we get rid the department? You can't just cut education without having an alternative funding plan. Any ideas, you've got my ear. You can't be serious? How did the Smithsonian get funds before Carter was President, eh? You realize this was a Dept he created as a payback to the teachers unions for supporting him! Student Loans could be directly disbursed and paid back to the IRS as a percentage of income (something which would reduce default rates and save taxpayers billions, but congress resists thanks to lobbying from the banking industry). Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you realise it delegates power over education to the states? Are you aware that in its last audit, the Dept of Ed had over a BILLION dollars missing that it couldn't account for? This is nothing but a self serving bureaucracy that educates noone and costs a bundle. Over 90% of education is paid by the states. Give some $$$ directly to the states if need be. The fact is, since its inception, spending on education has skyrockets, while tests scores have dropped and dropout rates have increased. SBA- Small business is one of the foundations our country was based on. This helps hard working Americans start their own business and contribute to society in an exponential way. I gues you want to end entrepreneurship in America huh. This is the one Administration which actually generates more revenues vis-a-vis tax revenue increases. Sorry, but what minimal good the SBA does simply does not warrant its costs. It is first and foremost a vehicle for promoting affirmative action. ie - The Clintons formed a "business" with their partners from Whitewater, and put the business in Susan McDougle's name because it's so much easier for a woman or minority to secure a gov't loan thru the SBA. Yes, small businesses are the backbone of the economy, particularly job growth, but 99% of the success stories occur with no help from the SBA. I know plenty of guys who've started their own businesses, but I have yet to meet one who owes their success to any help from the SBA. HUD- Section 8 can be revamped with stipulations tied to the program, it's a total of 15 billion, not a hell of a lot of money, but concessions need to be made. We need the federal backing of mortgages with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc. They help keep the real estate market stable. HUD has been scandal ridden for over 20 years, though it's not as bad now as it was during the Reagan administration. Eliminate the dept and spin off FHA and VHA as semi-private entities. I bought a house, but I never contacted Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. NEA- a budget of $277 million doesn't amount to a hill of beans. So I take it you're against education huh. I agree, ti's not a hill of beans, but you add up a few hundred million here and a few hundred million there, and pretty soon you might be talking about some real money. Look, you can find some good in every dept of gov't, but very few stand up to a true cost benefit analysis. Think of your favorite program in the gov't, then ask yourself if you'd be willing to give it up if it meant never having to pay income taxes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakkhim Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear Pick one or put forth another: Repeal the Bush Taxes go back to Clinton times Keep taxes the same Go with a 20% across the board Go with a 20% above 20k a year Have the States do the taxes and then pay for DC... you can then decide where to live based on that... Go with a National Sales Tax of 10%... other... 20% tax on people that make 20K? 20K isn't much to live on and that's a lot of money to be taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Drakkhim 20% tax on people that make 20K? 20K isn't much to live on and that's a lot of money to be taken out. Since those on the lower end of the income scale receive the greatest benefit from government programs, they should foot more of the bill. Where you think $4,000 is a lot of money, imagine how Dick Cheney felt with his $34 million tax bill the year he became Vice President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Art -- 401K matching to help get more people off social security. 401 K is great untill you all find out about the truth. If you think the scandal with one of the big companies was something just wait :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by riggo-toni 5% vat flat tax of 18% for all earnings above $20k. No deductions, except $5k per child dependent. Eliminate the following gov't depts: Energy Education Commerce Small Business Administration HUD Agriculture NEA So what is your plan for all the employees you just got rid of, and who regulates these industries now?? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma So what is your plan for all the employees you just got rid of, and who regulates these industries now?? :doh: I didn't realize you had such a soft spot for bureaucrats. Here's a novel idea: The reduced tax burden will boost.... private industry, which believe it or not is the primary engine of growth, and thus job creation. How many factories have closed down because of undue tax and regulatory burdens? You seems less concerned with them, eh? How exactly is the Dept of Ed regulating education??? Gee, I guess secondary education was so much worse before Carter created the Ed Dept?? Not. What makes you think the EPA and the SEC can't do a better job than the bloated Dept of Energy? Do you think whole industries would collapse without the billions in subsidies they ciphon of the Commerce Dept.? Or that the statistical information they gather couldn't be shifted over to the Labor Dept.? All these Depts have grown exponentially since the late 70s. When the Dept of Agriculture started out, there were 2 employees, and 2 million farmers. Now there's an employee for every 5 "farmers" And these farmers include lots of part time farmers like Sam Donaldson who get tens of thousands of dollars every year in gov't handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakkhim Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 I make about 20K a year, and I didn't get any benefits from the government. I had about 20% taken for taxes and and because I made *TOO* much money, I didn't get a tax credit and my tax return was garbage. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I didn't get any kind of tax break last year that was even significantly noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma 401 K is great untill you all find out about the truth. If you think the scandal with one of the big companies was something just wait :doh: As usual, JB, when you post, the world yawns at the inconsequential words you bring. And when you pretend to have some secret insight that no one else knows because of your well-placed sources, well, you just come off looking like a tool. I know you don't mind that. But, if on some level that disturbs you, you ought to consider some mild stylistic change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Drakkhim I make about 20K a year, and I didn't get any benefits from the government. I had about 20% taken for taxes and and because I made *TOO* much money, I didn't get a tax credit and my tax return was garbage. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I didn't get any kind of tax break last year that was even significantly noticeable. Drakkim, I'd have to know the specifics of your filing status, what exemptions you claim if any and the like to be able to speak at all effectively on your specific situation. But, to make $20K means you have a very low federal income tax burden already. Something under 10 percent total. You would have received some small amount as a break, but, it probably wouldn't have been all that shocking considering how little you pay in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakkhim Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 It may be due to the fact that I claim 1 (myself) on my federal? I am also single. Is it a large difference in how much you pay into federal if you just claim one? I know that your return is smaller, but you get more on your paychecks, which should even out. Get paid more now, and get a lesser return other than get paid less and get a bigger return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.