In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then,
SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using
their credit cards.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:



I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.
Maybe not. The estimated compliance costs (bookkeeping, time taken to
get the stuff together and fill out the forms, filing help from H&R
Block to a Big 8 Accounting firm, etc.) was estimated at $391.1 billion
in 2009. As of 2009 the income-tax industry employed more workers than
are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500
companies--more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel
Service, McDonald's, International Business Machines, and Citigroup
combined.
Researchers from the Fair Tax Blog note that complying with the
federal income tax code amounts to imposing a 22.2-cent tax compliance
surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. The
compliance costs are said to be highly regressive.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Apr 17, 5:08*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then,
SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using
their credit cards.

--


Yeah, I thought claiming that the home mortgage deduction
is welfare for the banks was a big stretch too. If you want to
claim that, then as you point out, you can make all kinds of
similar claims that are a big stretch too.

I'm asking, gently, your political leaning. If the name is not accurate,
please tell me how you describe yourself.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Reading your last several posts, you appear to be a dyed in the wool
liberal
socialist.

As long as you can fall back on what amounts to name calling,
you don't even need to put together logical sentences.

--
Dan Espen

I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less
government theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you view
tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view. Yes? If not, please tell
us your actual views.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks.

--
Dan Espen

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then,
SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using
their credit cards.

Interesting how you just turned
"multiple purposes but one of them is welfare"
into
"is really welfare".


Does SS help out banks? What do you think?

--
Dan Espen

" writes:

On Apr 17, 5:08Â*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then,
SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using
their credit cards.

Yeah, I thought claiming that the home mortgage deduction
is welfare for the banks was a big stretch too. If you want to
claim that, then as you point out, you can make all kinds of
similar claims that are a big stretch too.

See my other post.

Sure you can distort anyone's words.

The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's
PBS Newshour.

The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction
as "encouraging home ownership". The people that would fight repeal
were home builders and banks.


--
Dan Espen

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

I'm asking, gently, your political leaning. If the name is not accurate,
please tell me how you describe yourself.

No you started with 3 labels that most people consider pejoratives.

dyed in the wool
liberal
socialist

I'd vote for Chris Christi for governor.
I like the job he's doing but I normally vote Democrat.
I'm neither dyed in the wool, liberal nor socialist.

As you should know, the Democratic Party has been capitalist
for a long time.

--
Dan Espen

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less
government theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you view
tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view. Yes? If not, please tell
us your actual views.

Getting toward my limit of replying to top posting.

We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?

I'm for less government intrusion too!

The government is stealing my money when they waste it.
Like they do with the military, DEA, TSA, and countless other
agencies. Unfortunately, neither party is going to reduce the
size of government. History has proven that.

What's needed from candidates are specific proposals.
Hear Romney's last "secret" speech?
He had no clue what he would cut.

--
Dan Espen

On Apr 17, 7:29*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
" writes:
On Apr 17, 5:08*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then,
SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using
their credit cards.

Yeah, I thought claiming that the home mortgage deduction
is welfare for the banks was a big stretch too. *If you want to
claim that, then as you point out, you can make all kinds of
similar claims that are a big stretch too.

See my other post.

Sure you can distort anyone's words.

The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's
PBS Newshour.

That's reassuring.



The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction
as "encouraging home ownership". *The people that would fight repeal
were home builders and banks.

--

I see your problem. You're impressed with "experts" that the
media puts forth. Most of them don't know their ass from
a hole in the ground. An "expert" is any damn fool who's
opinion supports the way they want to tell a story.

Here's my expert take. The "corporate welfare"
mantra is a good example of where you and Democrats
are coming from today. By trying to call anything and
everything welfare, you seek to legitimze handing
out money to people for doing nothing, which is what
real welfare is and at the same time, you get to attack
capitalism. Yes, the banks benefit from issuing
more mortgages. So, do lumber companies, electricians,
HD, and the taxpayers using that particular deduction.
Are they all on welfare too? Feel free to consult with
your talking head.....

On Apr 17, 6:09*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less
government *theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you view
tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view.

Bingo! It's just like the Democrats saying, this tax cut
will "cost" us this much money. Like it was their money
all along. But you can't blame them. That is actually
how they look at it.

Dan Espen wrote in :

Doug Miller writes:

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite
effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

That's true only for wage or salary income. Someone with an income of, say, $200K
annually from investments pays a substantially *lower* percentage than someone with an
income of $150K from salary.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.

Which, of course, is exactly the point: everyone pays the same *rate*.

Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

No, because they're paying a *lower* rate now.

" writes:

R On Apr 17, 7:29Â*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's
PBS Newshour.

That's reassuring.

The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction
as "encouraging home ownership". Â*The people that would fight repeal
were home builders and banks.

I see your problem. You're impressed with "experts" that the
media puts forth.

NO!

You think I put "experts" in quotes for fun?

Most of them don't know their ass from
a hole in the ground. An "expert" is any damn fool who's
opinion supports the way they want to tell a story.

No, an expert in this case is someone that convinces the staff
of the PBS Newshour that they are knowledgeable on the subject.
If you'd like to research the subject and post your results
go ahead.

Here's my expert take. The "corporate welfare"
mantra is a good example of where you and Democrats
are coming from today. By trying to call anything and
everything welfare, you seek to legitimze handing
out money to people for doing nothing, which is what
real welfare is and at the same time, you get to attack
capitalism. Yes, the banks benefit from issuing
more mortgages. So, do lumber companies, electricians,
HD, and the taxpayers using that particular deduction.
Are they all on welfare too? Feel free to consult with
your talking head.....

I don't have to.

First the traditional welfare system that you are ranting about
was scaled back a long time ago with the help of Newt and company.
I'm fine with that. I'm also open to further reforms.

Second, if you don't believe me, remember Dwight Eisenhower. He warned
all of us about what was going to happen. We give 3 billion in aid to
some country and it turns out it's 3 billion to buy US made military
equipment. I call that welfare.

--
Dan Espen

wrote in news:5630687.187.1334690449443.JavaMail.geo-
discussion-forums@ynee23:

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

No it is not.

Right now the rich have loopholes and tax shelters and all kids of places to hide their
money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime in taxes.

You can't hide the money you SPEND.

Which brings us around to the other big advantage of a sales tax: It's the only way there is of
taxing illegally earned income.

Sure, there might be one or two drug dealers somewhere in the U.S. who actually declare
their income on Form 1040 and pay taxes on it -- but common sense tells you that most of
them don't. As is the case, I'm sure, with a great many people who are paid in cash.

" wrote in news:8d5efa5c-a202-4e1e-bfa2-
:

On Apr 17, 3:10*pm, wrote:
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Ame
ndment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

That's true. One benefit of a national sales tax or a VAT
tax is that it's harder to avoid.




And what is it supposed to accomplish?

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Ever
yone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up
paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?

Congress has been using the tax code as an instrument of social and economic policy for
several generations. Without addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of doing so, I wish to
point out that a sales tax can be *much* more finely tuned, in that respect, than an income
tax, for example:
-- no sales tax whatever on staple foods such as flour, sugar, eggs, milk, etc. but substantial
sales tax on soda, potato chips, Twinkies, etc
-- sales tax *rate* on meat tied to the per-pound price, e.g. 1% on hamburger and 10% on
filet mignon
-- no sales tax whatever on any used goods
-- first $50K of the price of a home exempted
and so on. We can argue about the specifics all day long, but there are many, many ways
that a sales tax can be structured to minimize or eliminate its impact on the very poor.



The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

And the tax would hit the poor, who pay no tax at all
the hardest. You could partly offset that by making
food, housing up to a certain point, etc exempt.

It's interesting, but I believe it would shift a lot more
of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.



The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed
.

It would encourage saving.

Yes, but with an economy just barely moving, it could also
put us in a depression when people reduce buying.



It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article
3466611.154.1334689829036.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynje10,
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone
would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up
paying more taxes.

I'd be a little more supportive if someone could give me a definition
of "fair share" that did not, in essence, boil down to "what offends me
personally".

The only reasonable definition of "fair share" IMHO is that above a certain threshold level
designed to protect the working poor from having to pay *any* tax, everyone pays the
same rate.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in news:5630687.187.1334690449443.JavaMail.geo-
discussion-forums@ynee23:

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

No it is not.

Right now the rich have loopholes and tax shelters and all kids of places to hide their
money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime in taxes.

You can't hide the money you SPEND.

Which brings us around to the other big advantage of a sales tax: It's the only way there is of
taxing illegally earned income.

Not just illegally earned but the entire "underground economy" gets taxed.

Sure, there might be one or two drug dealers somewhere in the U.S. who actually declare
their income on Form 1040 and pay taxes on it -- but common sense tells you that most of
them don't. As is the case, I'm sure, with a great many people who are paid in cash.

The bigwigs do, that's what the term "laundering money" is all about.

wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share."
Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so
they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Why is that a "problem?"

The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't send
their kids to government schools, use the county hospital, collect rent
suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay SOMETHING. After all,
they are driven on public roads and use federal airspace. But the poor use
far more tax-supported services, both absolutely and per capita, so fairness
dictates they pay more.

wrote:

You can't hide the money you SPEND.


Oh yes you can!

Remember when Clinton imposed a "luxury" tax on, for example, boats that
cost more than $100,000?

There were two results of this action:

1. Yacht builders in the United States went out of business, laying off
thousands in the industry (craftsmen, designers, salesmen, etc.)

2. The rich started buying their yachts in the Bahamas.

Sure you can.... ever heard of drug dealers? So, what corner junky is going
to collect and remit sales tax?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


You can't hide the money you SPEND.

That helps me define Dan Espen, in my view.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message news:f0bd076e-0cc4-4bd4-82a2-

Bingo! It's just like the Democrats saying, this tax cut
will "cost" us this much money. Like it was their money
all along. But you can't blame them. That is actually
how they look at it.

Dan, do you think it's the government's job to encourage us to do things we
would not otherwise do? Should the government organize the tax code, to
"encourage" people to do things or not do other things?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction
as "encouraging home ownership". The people that would fight repeal
were home builders and banks.


--
Dan Espen

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:nbpjr.23463
:

Sure you can.... ever heard of drug dealers? So, what corner junky is going
to collect and remit sales tax?

That's a different issue -- drugs should be legalized and taxed -- but in any event, never mind
the junkie. Tax the *dealer* when he buys a brand new Mercedes and a Rolex.

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

The recent
take over of the banks and auto manufacturers, that's socialist. When
government owns the means of production.

Congress at the urgent request of President George W. Bush passed the
Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP", funded at $700 billion.

Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

--
Dan Espen

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:



We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?

I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason
(from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used
for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there
have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went
down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3
consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman
before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years
of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both
times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked
under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than
wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the
current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?
Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures
show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the
top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.



The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes
relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These
we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until
death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't
see them under a sales tax scenario.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


The only reasonable definition of "fair share" IMHO is that above a certain
threshold level
designed to protect the working poor from having to pay *any* tax, everyone
pays the
same rate.
You are getting closer, I'll have to admit. Now, define working poor
objectively. (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 4/18/2012 2:23 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , Dan
wrote:


We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?
I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason
(from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used
for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there
have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went
down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3
consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman
before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years
of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both
times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked
under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.


After the wars all bets were off.

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in the
past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what they can
and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other areas.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 4/18/2012 2:23 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , Dan
wrote:


We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?
I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason
(from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used
for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there
have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went
down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3
consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman
before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years
of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both
times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked
under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.


After the wars all bets were off.

Both of these instances, though, preceded the wars. The latter, CwA had
been pretty much emasculated by 1999 or so.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

I don't think that "dyed in the wool" is a critical or insulting term. It is
synonym for sincere. Now, I'm going to describe you as sensetive, and easily
offended.

The Democrat party for the last years I've been observing. Promoting
increased taxes and regulations. Reduced freedom, and also a resulting
reduced capitalism. Chanting "the rich didn't pay their fair share, and we
need to raise taxes on the rich" does not promote capitalism.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

I'm asking, gently, your political leaning. If the name is not accurate,
please tell me how you describe yourself.

No you started with 3 labels that most people consider pejoratives.

dyed in the wool
liberal
socialist

I'd vote for Chris Christi for governor.
I like the job he's doing but I normally vote Democrat.
I'm neither dyed in the wool, liberal nor socialist.

As you should know, the Democratic Party has been capitalist
for a long time.

--
Dan Espen

The tax levels at present are damaging the economy. People can't afford to
buy stuff, hire people, or expand or improve business. To further raise
taxes (because the Fed spends more than it takes in) will further plunge us
into deeper depression. What is needed, is to boldly and severely reduce
government spending, and severely reduce the size and reach of government.

Getting toward my limit of trying to explain freedom, and limited government
to a poster who appears to be a dyed in the wool liberal socialist.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less
government theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you
view
tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view. Yes? If not, please
tell
us your actual views.

Getting toward my limit of replying to top posting.

We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?

I'm for less government intrusion too!

The government is stealing my money when they waste it.
Like they do with the military, DEA, TSA, and countless other
agencies. Unfortunately, neither party is going to reduce the
size of government. History has proven that.

What's needed from candidates are specific proposals.
Hear Romney's last "secret" speech?
He had no clue what he would cut.

--
Dan Espen

How about spending cuts, to reduce the deficit? Maybe cut spending to year
2006 levels, for example?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits.
Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?

I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason
(from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used
for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there
have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went
down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3
consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman
before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years
of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both
times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked
under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than
wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the
current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?

Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures
show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the
top and bottom groups.

Yes, if you look only at the rates levied on "earned income" (wage and salary). "Unearned
income" from capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate.

Making things worse, the "payroll taxes" (Social Security and Medicare) are levied only on
earned income, and on the lower end of that to boot. For earned incomes above the social
security cap, the higher the income the *lower* the effective rate of the so-called payroll tax
(which is, of course, just another income tax with a different name).

Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.

In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good thing.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


The only reasonable definition of "fair share" IMHO is that above a certain
threshold level
designed to protect the working poor from having to pay *any* tax, everyone
pays the
same rate.
You are getting closer, I'll have to admit. Now, define working poor
objectively. (g).

I'm comfortable with using the Federal government's definition of the poverty level, perhaps
by applying some multiplier. Seems to me it should be based on family size.

Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who
don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs."

I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice for
all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.

In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good
thing.

On Apr 18, 3:31*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than
wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the
current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?

* * Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures
show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the
top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.



The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. *He's paying around
18%. *Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. *And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. *I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes
relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These
we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until
death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't
see them under a sales tax scenario.

The best specifics I could find was that Buffet had a total reported
income of $63mil and paid $7mil in tax. Even if you had a 20%
sales tax rate, he would have to have spent $35mil to generate a
sales tax equal to what he paid
under the current system. Anyone here believe Buffet is spending
$35mil a year? More likely he's spending just a few million a year,
if that. Meaning under a sales tax based system, he would pay
far less. Take a look at Romney or any other top earner's incomes
that are public and I'd like to see one where a sales tax system
would yield the govt anywhere near the same amount.

On Apr 17, 9:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share."
Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so
they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Why is that a "problem?"

The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't send
their kids to government schools, use the county hospital, collect rent
suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay SOMETHING. After all,
they are driven on public roads and use federal airspace. But the poor use
far more tax-supported services, both absolutely and per capita, so fairness
dictates they pay more.

It's a problem because it shifts more of the tax burden on
those with little or modest incomes. The poor and middle
class would get socked. I have no problem with
a tax system that is graduated to some degree, nor do I
think most people do. Also, those rich people benefitted
from the infrastructure. Shouldn't the rich pay a lot more for
the military to in part, protect their wealth, than the guy
making $10,000?

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

K
I'm comfortable with using the Federal government's definition of the poverty
level, perhaps
by applying some multiplier. Seems to me it should be based on family size.

Most plans seem to suggest something like 150 or 200% of poverty line as
a cutoff for things like school lunches, etc. The poverty levels are
based on family size and are even higher for Alaska and Hawaii.
Just for the heck of it. 2011, poverty level in the US for single
person is over $20,000. Average per capita income in Africa was around
$4,000.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Apr 17, 8:35*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
" writes:

R On Apr 17, 7:29*pm, Dan Espen wrote:

The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's
PBS Newshour.

That's reassuring.

The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction
as "encouraging home ownership". *The people that would fight repeal
were home builders and banks.

I see your problem. *You're impressed with "experts" that the
media puts forth.

NO!

You think I put "experts" in quotes for fun?

Well then why did you cite the expert that agreed with
your position?




*Most of them don't know their ass from
a hole in the ground. *An "expert" is any damn fool who's
opinion supports the way they want to tell a story.

No, an expert in this case is someone that convinces the staff
of the PBS Newshour that they are knowledgeable on the subject.
If you'd like to research the subject and post your results
go ahead.

So now you're back to the expert being knowledgable.
Are you confused?




Here's my expert take. *The "corporate welfare"
mantra is a good example of where you and Democrats
are coming from today. *By trying to call anything and
everything welfare, you seek to legitimze handing
out money to people for doing nothing, which is what
real welfare is and at the same time, you get to attack
capitalism. *Yes, the banks benefit from issuing
more mortgages. *So, do lumber companies, electricians,
HD, and the taxpayers using that particular deduction.
Are they all on welfare too? *Feel free to consult with
your talking head.....

I don't have to.

First the traditional welfare system that you are ranting about
was scaled back a long time ago with the help of Newt and company.
I'm fine with that. *I'm also open to further reforms.

Scaled back? Yeah, it was scaled back a bit two decades
ago by trying to make it so that it was not a lifetime program.
But if that was so successful, why are we spending $1.5tril this
year on social programs?

The total cost since 1965 when LBJ declared war on poverty
is now about $16tril, equal to the national debt. Back then the
poverty rate was around 15%. It still is.




Second, if you don't believe me, remember Dwight Eisenhower. *He warned
all of us about what was going to happen. *We give 3 billion in aid to
some country and it turns out it's 3 billion to buy US made military
equipment. I call that welfare.

--
Dan Espen

It depends on who that country is and what the circumstances are.
Giving aid to Afghanistan or Germany to counter the Soviet Union
during the cold war sounds like a mighty fine investment. Right now
I'd be giving it to the revolutionaries in Syria.