Fuck its silent in here.......

[morpheus]

The foreclosure mess, for those who are interested.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

[morpheus]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

For the next two years, anyway.

[Yeti]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

[R-V]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

[morpheus]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

In the interest of bipartisan consensus-building I'm going to go ahead and say that I think this is a great idea.

[CT III]

24 cents for the Perverted Arts?!?

OUTRAGEOUS!

[Quality Start Machine]

Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox

Here's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

They have every part of military spending itemized on here, with the exception of materials. Good thing that's not a big expenditure.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Legalize drugs and give me my three bills and change back, thankyouverymuch.  Or apply it to some program that's not utter bullshit.

[Yeti]

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

I'm not saying that lower earners shouldn't pay income tax. I'm just asking why we should increase them from what they are. Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years. And honestly, increasing taxes on the lower income earners is much more damaging than increasing taxes on the higher income earners, on a household to household basis. My position on this has been made clear. I'm a penniless bitch and I'm extremely worried about the government increases my taxes because, for me, that would be a bit of a blow. I'd survive but they're going to make it just that much more difficult for me. And I'll turn into a very pissed off angry white man. And we all know the kind of shit that happens when there's a shitload of angry white men.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

Yea. It does nothing for me. Sorry. I can visually see the amount I'm paying each pay period by looking at my paystub. That has about the same impact.

[Chuck to Chuck]

There's one problem with this receipt.  It's wrong.  What this receipt shows is how their taxes were divided up.  It does NOT show how much was spent.

Say I go to Target and pick up a bunch of stuff worth $125, but I only give them $100.  The receipt should still show that I spent $125 but have put $25 o the bill on my Target credit card.

For a person paying $5,400 in taxes, how much did we actually spend?  $5,800?  $6,000?  I don't know.

[Bort]

Legalize drugs and give me my three bills and change back, thankyouverymuch.  Or apply it to some program that's not utter bullshit.

OLEG HUEY IS RIGHT!

[Eli]

Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

[Yeti]

Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.