Emboldened GOP Wants to Abolish State Income Taxes

[CSpindizzy]

LG - you do know the rank and file typically vote the way of the leadership right? And much of the current system was either left as is from previous years OR voted on to be carried out as the current system. If those corrupt Republicans ran things into the ground prior to 2007 with control of the WH and Congress, what did the Dems (controlling Congress after 2006 and the WH after 2008) do to change it? Very little if anything. In most cases the "reforms" made the divide even worse.

Case in point on the D side: did you see any sort of rebellion on the D leadership over the past few cycles? Anything comparable to the Tea Party of some movement to rebel against the leadership? None.

 

[lawgator1]

Marxism if I ever heard it!

That's not an "ism." Its a recognition of what has happened throughout history and is not a value judgment on what has come before or exists now.

Having said that, the countryside of history is undeniably littered with societies where some small contingent of the population, be they regal or military or what have you, managed to get into a position where they were taking an ever increasing slice of the pie whilst the number who got far less grew and grew, and that is not sustainable.

Human nature is human nature.

 

[milohimself]

... Which is at the core of what marx said. Just saying.

 

[volinbham]

that's not going to be true no matter how many times you repeat it

No kidding.

 

[lawgator1]

LG - you do know the rank and file typically vote the way of the leadership right? And much of the current system was either left as is from previous years OR voted on to be carried out as the current system. If those corrupt Republicans ran things into the ground prior to 2007 with control of the WH and Congress, what did the Dems (controlling Congress after 2006 and the WH after 2008) do to change it? Very little if anything. In most cases the "reforms" made the divide even worse.

Case in point on the D side: did you see any sort of rebellion on the D leadership over the past few cycles? Anything comparable to the Tea Party of some movement to rebel against the leadership? None.

1) I agree than the membership tend to vote the way of the leadership, generally. But when you think about it, the TP's genesis was largely that there was a decent sized and organized contingent within the GOP that was tired of vanilla, moderate, cookie cutter establishment types. It is why Romney's support is just so bland.

But, imo, it got somewhat coopted by single issue groups that want to take it over and make it about their own cause because, in their view, their cause is so obviously the right one (be it gun rights, abortion, whatever).

Can the pure fiscal conservative message fend off these take over bids? Don't know. It will be tough since those movements have been around a long time and the leaders are already drawn into them.

2) As starkly polarized as the GOP is within its own ranks, the Dems are the opposite in that they have no clear direction and no clear leadership. Obama? Nah, he has disappointed and when he is out of office he won't be a party mantle carrier, I don't think. What have they left -- Wasserman-Schultz or Howard Dean? Yuck. Would be nice if Clinton were more involved -- sort of an elder statesman, but he seems more interested in world issues than good old fashioned American politics.

 

[CSpindizzy]

As starkly polarized as the GOP is within its own ranks, the Dems are the opposite in that they have no clear direction and no clear leadership. Obama? Nah, he has disappointed and when he is out of office he won't be a party mantle carrier, I don't think. What have they left -- Wasserman-Schultz or Howard Dean? Yuck. Would be nice if Clinton were more involved -- sort of an elder statesman, but he seems more interested in world issues than good old fashioned American politics.

I would say they are all individual opportunists digging their hands into the jar getting their 'fair share'. If they are not profiting from insider info, they're taking in all the special interest perks they can. Not many "working class" types on the D side of the aisle at the moment. Basically what they accuse the GOP of being.

I found it humorous that many grassroots Dems were all screaming about SOPA - then they found out how many of their own party were pushing it. Even DNC head DWS was a leading cosponsor on the House version. Hard to protest against something when your elected officials are the ones championing it.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

LG turning yet another thread into a class warfare debate.

 

[lawgator1]

LG turning yet another thread into a class warfare debate.

I have long rejected the phrase, not as inaccurate, because I in fact think it is what is going on out there, but because somehow it has managed to take on a perjorative connotation.

In my mind, that is like saying it is harsh or improper to refer to the weather today as warm and sunny.

The classes ARE at war, always have been. Sometimes it is more acute than others. And it seems to me that what has always been America's saving grace is that it has the collective instinct not to let things get too far out of balance.

But fact is we have done so with the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the capital gain treatment for tax purposes, and the financial wreckage of the mortgage disaster.

Somehow we managed to let a handful of people become insanely wealthy while the middle class had their traditional nest egg of home ownership decimated in the process.

You can call my bringing that to your attention,or decrying it, "class warfare" all you want. It happens to be correct.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I have long rejected the phrase, not as inaccurate, because I in fact think it is what is going on out there, but because somehow it has managed to take on a perjorative connotation.

In my mind, that is like saying it is harsh or improper to refer to the weather today as warm and sunny.

The classes ARE at war, always have been. Sometimes it is more acute than others. And it seems to me that what has always been America's saving grace is that it has the collective instinct not to let things get too far out of balance.

But fact is we have done so with the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the capital gain treatment for tax purposes, and the financial wreckage of the mortgage disaster.

Somehow we managed to let a handful of people become insanely wealthy while the middle class had their traditional nest egg of home ownership decimated in the process.

You can call my bringing that to your attention,or decrying it, "class warfare" all you want. It happens to be correct.

Government intervention in the economy is the reason for the growing divide. Just look at TARP, the bailouts, and the Fed. It's all corporate welfare.

 

[volinbham]

I have long rejected the phrase, not as inaccurate, because I in fact think it is what is going on out there, but because somehow it has managed to take on a perjorative connotation.

In my mind, that is like saying it is harsh or improper to refer to the weather today as warm and sunny.

The classes ARE at war, always have been. Sometimes it is more acute than others. And it seems to me that what has always been America's saving grace is that it has the collective instinct not to let things get too far out of balance.

But fact is we have done so with the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the capital gain treatment for tax purposes, and the financial wreckage of the mortgage disaster.

Somehow we managed to let a handful of people become insanely wealthy while the middle class had their traditional nest egg of home ownership decimated in the process.

You can call my bringing that to your attention,or decrying it, "class warfare" all you want. It happens to be correct.

You are applying the causal link that makes it class warfare - telling one group their problems are the result of another group.

How did the rich getting richer (other than the tiny minority of banking scammers) decimate the middle class?

More importantly, how would raising the taxes on the top 2% and raising cap gains tax benefit the middle class?

That is what makes it class warfare - telling one group you can make them better off by sticking it to another group.

 

[lawgator1]

Government intervention in the economy is the reason for the growing divide. Just look at TARP, the bailouts, and the Fed. It's all corporate welfare.

Don't disagree.

Solution is less government involvement, okay, but what do you call a tax structure that treats investment income as some sort of sacrosanct type of income versus regular ordinary working income?

That makes no sense.

Even worse are the breaks and carried interest, etc., that the wealthy have paid to have put into the tax code.

You can argue that the lower class evades taxes because they take advantage of these programs that are supposed to be temporary and that they just don't contribute. You have a point.

At the same time, the upper class has the wherewithal to buy its own relative immunity from taxation.

You are applying the causal link that makes it class warfare - telling one group their problems are the result of another group.

How did the rich getting richer (other than the tiny minority of banking scammers) decimate the middle class?

More importantly, how would raising the taxes on the top 2% and raising cap gains tax benefit the middle class?

That is what makes it class warfare - telling one group you can make them better off by sticking it to another group.

The benefit would be that, if tomorrow we taxed passive or investment income as ordinary income we could come closer to balancing the budget and long term by definition the pressure on the middle class would be lower.

Don't give me the absurd line that it will lead to less investment. That is just plain wrong.

What we need now is a trickle up economic theory. We need to make the middle class stronger, not weaker. The upper class will benefit by that, too.

Especially if you come to the conclusion, as I have, that they are cutting their nose of too spite their face because if they continue to view themselves as removed from the problem and dismiss these issues as just class envy then when it does in fact crash they'll be as stuck as the rest of us.

 

[volinbham]

The benefit would be that, if tomorrow we taxed passive or investment income as ordinary income we could come closer to balancing the budget and long term by definition the pressure on the middle class would be lower.

Explain this "by definition the pressure on the middle class would be lower" contention. That's it? That's how the rich getting richer is screwing the middle class?

Don't give me the absurd line that it will lead to less investment. That is just plain wrong.

You believe raising the cap gains rate will have NO impact on investing? Interesting. How do you back that up?

What we need now is a trickle up economic theory. We need to make the middle class stronger, not weaker. The upper class will benefit by that, too.

How? How does raising taxes on the rich and raising the cap gains rate do this? Osmosis?

Especially if you come to the conclusion, as I have, that they are cutting their nose of too spite their face because if they continue to view themselves as removed from the problem and dismiss these issues as just class envy then when it does in fact crash they'll be as stuck as the rest of us.

I don't understand that last part - no one is saying class envy doesn't exist. The question is pretty fundamental - how does making the rich less rich build the middleclass? What is the economic theory?

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Don't disagree.

Solution is less government involvement, okay, but what do you call a tax structure that treats investment income as some sort of sacrosanct type of income versus regular ordinary working income?

That makes no sense.

Even worse are the breaks and carried interest, etc., that the wealthy have paid to have put into the tax code.

You can argue that the lower class evades taxes because they take advantage of these programs that are supposed to be temporary and that they just don't contribute. You have a point.

At the same time, the upper class has the wherewithal to buy its own relative immunity from taxation.

Eliminate the Federal income tax altogether and nobody bears any burden. No loopholes for anybody, nobody taken advantage of anybody else.

 

[lawgator1]

I don't understand that last part - no one is saying class envy doesn't exist. The question is pretty fundamental - how does making the rich less rich build the middleclass? What is the economic theory?

I confess I am not really well educated, at least formally, when it comes to naming economic theories. I can't identify the curve or the formula that might apply here.

But I'm not sure that's where we are right now. I mean, let's take Romney as an example (not because of his politics or that he's running, but purely because we know the basic numbers and taxation posture).

He makes $42 million in two years and pays $6 million in taxes, which is under 15%. (I think I heard last year was 13.9 %, or something like that).

If he had made that money painting houses, he'd have paid more like $12 million in taxes.

So as is he nets $36 million in two years. And let's not forget that he makes that EVERY two years. Is not like he won the lottery and is being paid in that two installments. He is receiving similar income over and over.

If he had to pay the regular rate, he'd still net $30 million.

Two things:

1) It is simply not fathomable to most people why he needs the extra $6 million. I mean, for two years? What difference in his lifestyle can that possibly mean?

Whereas, for most Americans 1 percent of that, or $60,000, would dramatically change their quality of life. They could pay down a mortgage or send a kid to school for that. It would truly have a huge impact on their daily lives. And that is just 1 percent. OF THE DIFFERENCE.

2) In the absence of that $ 6 million coming from him, it has to come from somewhere else. Where? The middle class, that's where.


So you combine those things and you have a middle class getting squeezed economically between the fact that he is making more and more and, relative to his truly enormous wealth paying less and less, and in terms of government spending the very people who are getting squeezed are picking up the difference.

No one is saying he can't make $42 million in two years. As far as I'm concerned he can make $420 million in one year.

But I want him to pay taxes on that just as I do for coming to work every day, or as the guy at McDonald's does, etc.

I simply cannot come up with an intellectually honest reason that he shouldn't have paid $12 million in taxes instead of $6 million, and I cannot dream of a reason that he would really see a meaningful change in his lifestyle taking home $30 million instead of $36 million.

 

[utvolpj]

doesn't money first have to be earned in order to be invested?

 

[volinbham]

I confess I am not really well educated, at least formally, when it comes to naming economic theories. I can't identify the curve or the formula that might apply here.

But I'm not sure that's where we are right now. I mean, let's take Romney as an example (not because of his politics or that he's running, but purely because we know the basic numbers and taxation posture).

He makes $42 million in two years and pays $6 million in taxes, which is under 15%. (I think I heard last year was 13.9 %, or something like that).

If he had made that money painting houses, he'd have paid more like $12 million in taxes.

So as is he nets $36 million in two years. And let's not forget that he makes that EVERY two years. Is not like he won the lottery and is being paid in that two installments. He is receiving similar income over and over.

If he had to pay the regular rate, he'd still net $30 million.

Two things:

1) It is simply not fathomable to most people why he needs the extra $6 million. I mean, for two years? What difference in his lifestyle can that possibly mean?

Whereas, for most Americans 1 percent of that, or $60,000, would dramatically change their quality of life. They could pay down a mortgage or send a kid to school for that. It would truly have a huge impact on their daily lives. And that is just 1 percent. OF THE DIFFERENCE.

2) In the absence of that $ 6 million coming from him, it has to come from somewhere else. Where? The middle class, that's where.


So you combine those things and you have a middle class getting squeezed economically between the fact that he is making more and more and, relative to his truly enormous wealth paying less and less, and in terms of government spending the very people who are getting squeezed are picking up the difference.

No one is saying he can't make $42 million in two years. As far as I'm concerned he can make $420 million in one year.

But I want him to pay taxes on that just as I do for coming to work every day, or as the guy at McDonald's does, etc.

I simply cannot come up with an intellectually honest reason that he shouldn't have paid $12 million in taxes instead of $6 million, and I cannot dream of a reason that he would really see a meaningful change in his lifestyle taking home $30 million instead of $36 million.

But you are equating his income and tax rate to a cause for the middle class not doing so well.

What you've posted above is a "fairness" argument but it then gets couched in a "solution" argument - the way to help the middle class is to make him pay more.

This is the fundamental disconnect and where the intellectual dishonesty in the Obama message comes in - "you are all suffering because he isn't paying enough" and the corollary - "if we make him pay more, your situation will improve". Until you show the mechanism of how him paying more improves the economic condition of the middle class then you are simply creating a boogey man out of the well-off.

 

[CSpindizzy]

On your points LG:

1)Are you saying we should be taking that large sum of money and handing it out to each individual in the lower and middle classes?

2)As to your point of where this difference would come from, why should it come from anyone? Why take it at all? It's a general rule the more money that comes into the government coffers the more money is spent. Why not draw a line and stop taking from anyone? Your equating the government NOT taking from the rich means it taking from the poor instead is a deeply flawed argument. Cutting spending across the board and not taking more from any group does not burden anyone. Taking less across the board does not burden anyone.

 

[MG1968]

I've noticed that LG and other good leftists are calling for Romney's tax rate to be increased, but they never say anything about the secretaries of the world having their tax rate decreased.

Nearly half of all taxpayers have no net tax liability to the federal government. Broaden the base, decrease rates, eliminate loopholes, exemptions, credits. Eliminate employer withholding and make everybody have to file every 90 days.

 

[n_huffhines]

I confess I am not really well educated, at least formally, when it comes to naming economic theories. I can't identify the curve or the formula that might apply here.

Praxeology. A branch of economics that rejects the "hard" science approach to economics, and only accepts logic and reason. Economic philosophy, if you will.

 

[n_huffhines]

But you are equating his income and tax rate to a cause for the middle class not doing so well.

What you've posted above is a "fairness" argument but it then gets couched in a "solution" argument - the way to help the middle class is to make him pay more.

This is the fundamental disconnect and where the intellectual dishonesty in the Obama message comes in - "you are all suffering because he isn't paying enough" and the corollary - "if we make him pay more, your situation will improve". Until you show the mechanism of how him paying more improves the economic condition of the middle class then you are simply creating a boogey man out of the well-off.

The problem is it doesn't improve the economic condition of the middle class. You could take every cent from every American worth $5 billion+ and that would pay for one bailout. There aren't enough rich people to go around.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I've noticed that LG and other good leftists are calling for Romney's tax rate to be increased, but they never say anything about the secretaries of the world having their tax rate decreased.

Nearly half of all taxpayers have no net tax liability to the federal government. Broaden the base, decrease rates, eliminate loopholes, exemptions, credits. Eliminate employer withholding and make everybody have to file every 90 days.

I can tell you that most people who gripe and complain about the rich not paying their fair share do not bother looking at their own taxes. I am as middle class as I can get with a single income household. I can look at my withholding and then at my tax refund and using the rocket science formula of subtraction learn that because of my deductions and credits other tax payers are handing me money each February. I could actually have some rich guy telling me I am not paying my fair share. Because of this I'm more inclined not to support flat tax, 9-9-9, and other plans that end these deductions. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more like me in the middle and lower class that are actually paid each year rather than be "burdened" as LG likes to say.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Call me when GA or AL begins to move in that direction...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Call me when GA or AL begins to move in that direction...

I'm a little puzzled GA has not moved in the direction of sales tax and no income tax. With all of the FAIR Tax people here you'd think they would have already looked at doing this years ago at the state level. The one time it was even discussed the Speaker and the Lt. Gov about got into a fight and split the party right down the middle. Needless to say any efforts to touch the tax code in GA have been sealed away.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I just want to dump the car tag tax first

 

[CSpindizzy]

I just want to dump the car tag tax first

What? You don't like paying all that money for a sticker that can only be used for a year? It makes for the best birthday present.