1/1, 2/1, or 3/1 ?

#26
#26
droski said:

Getting to $2.9 trillion would likely require him to eliminate some of the largest items, such as the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable contributions and the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.

it's supposed to be tax neutral. i assure you eliminating interest deduction would not be a tax break for the wealthy.
Click to expand...



Have you been drinking?

Obviously eliminating the interest deduction is not a break to the wealthy.

Under Ryan's plan, spending on such programs as Medicare gets cut. That affects the working class the most in that they count on that program for provision of health care when they retire. As he does that, he has a tax program that takes away a big tax break for the middle class while he at the same time cuts taxes for the wealthiest.

Now, who is engaged in class warfare? Ryan for proposing this or Obama for crying foul?




If you are going to cut spending on programs that affect the middle and lower classes, then I don't think it out of line to suggest tax increases on the wealthiest. As I've said just a few posts above, I'm not even asking that it be 1-for-1. Cut more spending than you raise taxes on the top, I'm fine with that.

My suggestion is that, in order to break the logjam, there be an agreement that the taxes will be raised in a certain proportion to cuts in spending. Spread the pain, if you will.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
Have you been drinking?

Obviously eliminating the interest deduction is not a break to the wealthy.

Under Ryan's plan, spending on such programs as Medicare gets cut. That affects the working class the most in that they count on that program for provision of health care when they retire. As he does that, he has a tax program that takes away a big tax break for the middle class while he at the same time cuts taxes for the wealthiest.

Now, who is engaged in class warfare? Ryan for proposing this or Obama for crying foul?




If you are going to cut spending on programs that affect the middle and lower classes, then I don't think it out of line to suggest tax increases on the wealthiest. As I've said just a few posts above, I'm not even asking that it be 1-for-1. Cut more spending than you raise taxes on the top, I'm fine with that.

My suggestion is that, in order to break the logjam, there be an agreement that the taxes will be raised in a certain proportion to cuts in spending. Spread the pain, if you will.
Click to expand...

eliminating the interest deduction is a huge tax increase on the wealthy since on average the wealthy have a much high % of their income going to housing than the middle class. the reason? they can afford a high % of their income for a mortgage.

he's not suggesting compeltely cutting medicare. he's suggesting that we don't give the state gov'ts a blank check and allow them to spend whatever they want and then get a 100% match from the federal govt with no questions asked. this seems resonable.

the lower and middle class already benefit far more than the rich in the current system. they are getting these services essentially for free off the back of the rich.
 
#28
#28
droski said:
eliminating the interest deduction is a huge tax increase on the wealthy since on average the wealthy have a much high % of their income going to housing than the middle class. the reason? they can afford a high % of their income for a mortgage.

he's not suggesting compeltely cutting medicare. he's suggesting that we don't give the state gov'ts a blank check and allow them to spend whatever they want and then get a 100% match from the federal govt with no questions asked. this seems resonable.

the lower and middle class already benefit far more than the rich in the current system. they are getting these services essentially for free off the back of the rich.
Click to expand...



We might be talking about different people when we talk about the wealthiest. I'm referring to people that would have a mortgage purely as a gimmick for some sort of elaborate scheme to insulate dollars from taxation or some other business reason. In other words, people who have so much money that they need to worry about that and who make so much money they can afford the tax advice on how to structure it.

I'm not talking upper middle class.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
We might be talking about different people when we talk about the wealthiest. I'm referring to people that would have a mortgage purely as a gimmick for some sort of elaborate scheme to insulate dollars from taxation or some other business reason. In other words, people who have so much money that they need to worry about that and who make so much money they can afford the tax advice on how to structure it.

I'm not talking upper middle class.
Click to expand...

i think you severly overestimate how many of these people exist. plenty of people making over $250K a year have a significant mortgage. most do i'd imagine.
 
#30
#30
droski said:
i think you severly overestimate how many of these people exist. plenty of people making over $250K a year have a significant mortgage. most do i'd imagine.
Click to expand...

LG is also making the usual democrat mistake in assuming that 250k in New York City gives you the same buying power as 250k in Knoxville.
 
#32
#32
btw i am 100% in favor of eliminating 1031 exchanges for non personal residences and stopping this general partner garbage allowing hedge fund managers to tax their fees at 15%. both would be significant generators of tax.
 
#33
#33
MG1968 said:
LG is also making the usual democrat mistake in assuming that 250k in New York City gives you the same buying power as 250k in Knoxville.
Click to expand...

my friend just put in a bid for a house in westchester in LA (right next to inglewood) for $775,000. 3 bedroom house around 7,000 square feet lot. he didn't get it because he was outbid. and that is in a bad real estate market in a moderately priced neighborhood. trying buying a shack in santa monica for under a million.
 
#34
#34
droski said:
my friend just put in a bid for a house in westchester in LA (right next to inglewood) for $775,000. 3 bedroom house around 7,000 square feet lot. he didn't get it because he was outbid. and that is in a bad real estate market in a moderately priced neighborhood. trying buying a shack in santa monica for under a million.
Click to expand...

In Knoxville, that kind of juice could get you a 7000 sq. foot house on a lake or golf course.
 
#37
#37
droski said:
didn't you just end up telling me that you weren't arguing raising taxes benefits the economy?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

We already discussed (and I think sufficiently proven) how efficient it would be to raise corporate tax rates, and we discussed a new consumption tax I think would be a terribly appropriate mechanism for raising revenue in these times.
 
#39
#39
????????????

Originally Posted by utgibbs
No. I believe the lower tax rate is simply a corollary of the new economic principles in the vanguard.

No isn't clear?
 
#41
#41
so you retract your statement that increased taxes are not the reason why we had better growth?
 
#42
#42
droski said:
i think you severly overestimate how many of these people exist. plenty of people making over $250K a year have a significant mortgage. most do i'd imagine.
Click to expand...


Actually, on this one point we'd probably agree, that being that I think the $250,000 number is pretty dumb. But its marketable in the public relations fight over this, so I can understand why they use it.

I'd probably set the number at closer to a million, But by that number I mean earning that in ANY form. I'd kill off a lot of the means of backing dollars out of that. Basically a re-vamp of the AMT.
 
#43
#43
droski said:
so you retract your statement that increased taxes are not the reason why we had better growth?
Click to expand...


I've about reached the point where I conclude that tax policy has no effect on growth whatsoever, given that anyone making enough for it to matter to their ability or inclination to create jobs has almost certainly by now come up with a way to avoid it.
 
#44
#44
i'm in the AMT and I assure you i make a hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year. hell every person i know with any kind of sizable mortgage or any type of small business in california is pretty much in the amt. obama's policies aren't going to start hurting the people you are talking about. they are hurting the house rich people in the high cost of living states. most people who already are rich aren't doing things that generate taxes. it's the working rich that gets screwed here.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I've about reached the point where I conclude that tax policy has no effect on growth whatsoever, given that anyone making enough for it to matter to their ability or inclination to create jobs has almost certainly by now come up with a way to avoid it.
Click to expand...

was talking to gibbs not you. if you are making money and rich you are paying the maximum tax rate. the rich who aren't paying that are the ones who have already made their fortune and therefore have already paid taxes on it. outside of real estate there really aren't that many things you can do to shelter taxes on income. this was not true before the reagan administraton when tax shelters were going crazy and reagan eliminated that. i'd think you as a lawyer would know that.
 
#46
#46
droski said:
i'm in the AMT and I assure you i make a hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year. hell every person i know with any kind of sizable mortgage or any type of small business in california is pretty much in the amt. obama's policies aren't going to start hurting the people you are talking about. they are hurting the house rich people in the high cost of living states. most people who already are rich aren't doing things that generate taxes. it's the working rich that gets screwed here.
Click to expand...




Then you'd probably like what I generally have in mind, which would be to rework the AMT so that it is triggered at a much higher level, but cuts more deeply when it is triggered.



droski said:
was talking to gibbs not you. if you are making money and rich you are paying the maximum tax rate. the rich who aren't paying that are the ones who have already made their fortune and therefore have already paid taxes on it. outside of real estate there really aren't that many things you can do to shelter taxes on income. this was not true before the reagan administraton when tax shelters were going crazy and reagan eliminated that. i'd think you as a lawyer would know that.
Click to expand...


I don't deal with tax law, at all. Don't even do my own. But I've read enough to convince me that the very top do still manage to evade quite a bit of it.
 
#47
#47
I am one of the biggest anti-tax people on here. With that said, I will admit that if congress could show me on paper that they are cutting spending and entitlement programs and that I need to pay an extra 2 or 3% more per year in taxes so that we can totally wipe out all debt in the next decade I would be all for it. I just don't think it will ever happen. When I hear I need to pay more in taxes, I hear I need to support more lazy people.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
The proposal is that, for every dollar in cuts on the spending side, revenue increases are implemented in some ratio. Example, for every $2 in cuts, revenue collection is increased by $1.

This makes the deficit reduction more fair because it cuts benefits to those using entitlement programs and in some ratio also reduces the deficit by generating more revenue.
Click to expand...
so it would go a little like this... "We are cutting your program but also raising taxes on the guy who might have hired you so now he can't"... Do I understand the idea?

This is NOT simply about some simplistic and flawed liberal math equation. It MUST be about transferring power back to the people and away from gov't. It MUST be about reducing and eliminating gov't programs and thereby reducing the size and scope of the federal gov't. If it is just about "tightening the belt"... it will fail completely.

The figure I heard the other day being floated at this time is 3/1. For every $3 in spending cuts, revenue would be increased via taxation by $1.

Thoughts on this kind of approach as a general framework for the two sides to come together on this?
Click to expand...

I'll bite. Since revenues increased when JFK cut taxes... and when Reagan cut taxes... and when W cut taxes... then I agree completely. We should simultaneously cut spending AND taxes. That will achieve the end you seek.
 
#49
#49
NEOCON said:
I am one of the biggest anti-tax people on here. With that said, I will admit that if congress could show me on paper that they are cutting spending and entitlement programs and that I need to pay an extra 2 or 3% more per year in taxes so that we can totally wipe out all debt in the next decade I would be all for it. I just don't think it will ever happen. When I hear I need to pay more in taxes, I hear I need to support more lazy people.
Click to expand...

If they increase taxes, it will slow the economy. If the economy slows then the cuts will not produce a reduction of the deficit or debt.

Don't be fooled by this liberal non-sense.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
I don't deal with tax law, at all. Don't even do my own. But I've read enough to convince me that the very top do still manage to evade quite a bit of it.
Click to expand...

As long as we have a "progressive" income tax and politicians who are wealthy and friends of wealthy people... the truly rich will pay little in taxes. RE: GE, John Kerry, Warren Buffett.

If you want the rich to EVER pay their fair share then we MUST go to a single consumption tax like the Fair Tax.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top