The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Democrats say:

Cut taxes for the middle class, but not those making $250K+ a year, as the govt. needs the money and tax cuts for the wealthy aren't stimulative.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Republicans say:

Cut taxes for everyone, because it's not the individuals over $250K that are the problem, it's the small businesses that make $250K that we don't want to stifle, as they create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Again -- Sounds reasonable to me.

So why aren't we hearing this compromise:

Cut taxes for individuals under 250K per year, and also cut taxes for any BUSINESS filing over 250K per year, but not individuals.

That seems to fit both sides.  Is there something I'm not understanding as to why this isn't being proposed?

The problem with your solution is  most of those "businesses" in the $250k - $1 million range are "individuals." 

There is no such thing as a "business tax".

There is a tax on corporations (which this is not referring to) and taxes on individual income.  LLCs and partnerships are not taxed as entities but the income the owners make from them.

Let say you own a business that makes $275,00 per year  plus you make $25,000 from investments.  You are taxed at $300,000 as an individual.  There is no way separate your tax from say someone who makes $300k as a salary working for a corporation. 

Is there no way to distinguish business filing as individuals and just rich individuals?

There is always a way.  But you are talking about a radical upheaval of the tax code. 

One way would be to tax LLCs as an entity but make their distributions tax free and have different tax rates for LLCs and individuals.  I can think of several ways that would easily open things up to all sorts of fraud and tax evasion though. 

Actually, forget about the business end of it. If an individual makes over 250K a year why should they pay more taxes ? All taxpayers should pay the same percentage after exemptions and deductions. Assuming a hypothetical 10% tax rate. Taxpayer A makes $35K after E&D and pays $3500 in taxes. Taxpayer B makes $350K after E&D should pay $35,000 in taxes. So in actuality taxpayer B pays substantially more in taxes but the total over all percentage is the same. There is no way in hell that someone should be penalized for making more money. Either that or just go to the Fair Tax sales tax thing they keep talking about. BTW, I am kinda poor, but I still don't think that Bill Gates should pay a higher percentage of taxes than I do, fair is fair. I do however think that there should be a maximum amount of money that a person should be allowed to have before donating it away to charity, friends, or family.

Isn't the problem really,someone has to win,and be right?...I mean If they compromise,neither side wins...If it works,one side has to take the credit,if it flops,the other side has to use it against the other,and beat them to death with it in the next election. Sorry my two cents... :-[

I think that wealthier people should pay a higher percentage.  ...however, that's not really an issue that's on the table.  We have (and have had) a progressive tax system for a long, long, long time.

Actually that is the issue on the table. Although we have progressive tax brackets, not extending the tax cuts for higher earners effectively just widens the percentage gap. How is this any different than just coming straight out and raising taxes on the higher earners ? It's all an illusion with the end result the same.

If you don't mind me asking though Dave. Why do you feel that people that make more should pay a higher percentage ? In my example above, the higher earner makes 10x the money and pays 10x the taxes. Doesn't that seem fair ? I don't see why being successful should be penalized. Keep in mind that I am south of middle class.

I support progressive tax, cause the wealthy can afford it more than the poor. 

An extra 5% of taxes for a guy who earns $20,000 a year might mean the difference between heating his house to a normal temp or keeping the thermostat at 40 degrees and shivering under 6 blankets at night.

An extra 5% of taxes for a guy who earns $20,000,000 a year might mean the difference between have 2 private Jets or only having one. 

There are a few reasons.  I don't really think that taxes are about fairness.  Taxing everyone equally would be the fairest, I agree.  However, I don't think it's what's best for the country.  I think that we're stronger as a nation when there isn't a large gap between the poor - middle - upper classes.  I think it's best for everyone, even the rich.  Even though the wealthiest people would pay more, they won't have a neighbor sleeping in the street.  It's a better scenario for both, I feel, even if it is forced charity.  I think that it's kinda like the old adage about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link.

The 2nd reason is that I think it's good for the economy, as a whole.  Spending habits of the very wealthy don't change based on tax structure.  They are rich, regardless.  But spending habits of the poor do, greatly, since every bit of the money will be used to buy goods and services. 

The 3rd reason is that I feel that the wealthy utilize the structure of our country to gather their wealth more-so than the poor do.  Not counting stuff like food stamps and welfare (which is definitely worth arguing, I just think it's a separate thing), I think that upper earners utilize systems more.  I'll give you one example, but I'm sure there are many:  Those with money travel a lot.  They use airports way more than broke people do.  But, we are all paying for the FAA.

I think that I'm not really getting my 3rd point across very well.  I'll try it another way:  We have a system in the US, set up by tax dollars.  It includes commerce, roads, the internet, cable, telephones, trade agreements, and a slew of other stuff.  The wealthy are taking more advantage of that system to earn more money.  Therefore, I think it's reasonable to put them on the hook for more of it.

Lastly, I think it's just a matter that we need to control the deficit.  It needs to come from a reduction in spending AND an increase in taxes.  I don't think that the middle or lower class can bear that tax burden equally with the upper class.  The result would be too damaging.  Therefore, I support a progressive tax system.

Why the same percentage?  Why not just the same dollar amount?

No, seriously... why is it presumed that paying the same percentage is somehow "more fair" than the progressive system we have now?  At the end of the day, richer people are still paying more real dollars in taxes.  So if we can argue that it's unfair for Bill Gates to pay a higher percentage than a janitor at Best Buy, why can't we argue that it's unfair for him to pay more money, period?

The concept is very simple:  you make more money, you pay more money in taxes.  Argue against that, or don't, but don't try to sell me the story that if they are only paying the same percentage (where said percentage is defined in an extremely nebulous and malleable fashion), now it's actually "fair."  Because it's still not, and it'll just result in moving the goalposts further to the right.

P.S. Why include deductions and exemptions at all?  Doesn't that make it less fair?  Why should I pay more real dollars in taxes, as a single non-parent adult, compared to another adult with the same job and salary as me, but with a wife and 3 kids?

We can establish a just and fair system, as long as your remove all the special loopholes the rich people's lawyers always seem to find, and every special deduction os removed. Also there needs to be 100% transparency so that the rich can no longer hide money offshore or in Switzerland.

I don't think the question is whether or not the wealthy can afford the taxes, but moreso why are they being asked to carry more of the burden? They worked for their money just like everyone else(except Paris Hilton), so why punish them when a standard tax rate would have them paying more in taxes anyway?

I just find it to be un-American.

Because they have more disposable income.

This nation has to pay for a lot of things like infrastructure, military, and, yes, social programs.  In order to be able to afford to pay for them, there needs to be a certain level of revenue.  Right now, the revenue isn't high enough, so that leaves us with one of three non-exclusive choices:

1) cut spending
2) tax the lower income earners more
3) tax the upper income earners more

You find me a politician that wants to make significant cuts to any of the top three government line-items (Medicare, Social Security, defense) and I'll show you a politician that's out of a job.  So already, we've eliminated 82% of the budget from scrutinization.

If you care about running a balanced budget, you need to increase taxes.  And sorry, but if you're going to tell me that a low-income family being unable to afford to send their kid to college so that a person making $10M can keep 2% more of his income is "more fair," you and I have drastically different definitions of what the word fair means.

I do not see a nation in which we have a tiny, super-rich aristocracy and a sprawling majority of poor serfs as "the American dream."

and by the way .. this is a tax on income .. not on wealth .. if rich people don't want to pay higher taxes on their income over 250k .. then the solution is very simple .. don't make more than 250k in income after deductions.

seems to me like no-one is forcing the rich to get richer here .. yay for fairness

There are two forms of taxes on wealth as opposed to income. 

Property tax - in many states the bulk of local tax revenues.  This is almost always flat and not progressive. 
Inheritance tax - only paid once per generation with multiple tricks for the superwealthy to avoid most of it.  This is progressive.

Personally I would like to see us move away from taxing income and instead tax spending by getting rid of income tax and instituting a nation VAT or sales tax.  I would exempt some items from the VAT such as food and clothing under a certain price point, medical care, residential rent, needed utilities such as electric (cable would be taxed), and some other items.

What about taxing the things we buy instead of income? Spend less, pay less taxes.

Ok, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned,or the ramifications, Reading a couple of posts...Why not...

If you make $350k,only the 100k,over the 250K threshhold..If you make 500K,then you're taxed at the higher rate for the 250k....

Does that make sense? So everyone gets the tax break,up to 250k.....People paying higher still get a break, just on the first 250k.....

Revenue is not only taxes. There are plenty of things that the good ole' gubment could do to cut spending and increase revenue.

1. Repeal Obamacare. Not sure how much this would save, but I bet is substantial.

2. Quit the war on drugs. This alone would save $40 billion a year and generate another $20 billion in drug taxes. Not to mention the money you would save from locking up non-violent drug offenders and probably many more related savings.

Those are 2 examples of things that could be done to fix this train wreck. This problem is too big for tax revenue to fix. They may tax the rich more in the next year or two, but when that doesn't work (and it won't), who do you think is next for higher taxes ? It ain't gonna be our pets ! These problems can be solved but not with the same old tax and spend solutions that we have been using for the last 60 years.


^^^This. I would support this 1000%. But you have to realize that everyone is still paying the same percentage. Just on what they buy, not what they make. This would actually allow the rich to get even richer(not that that is a bad thing) as there would be no taxes on investment income.

That's a good idea.

That's proposed, but I have a big fear with that.

1) It would greatly promote saving instead of spending.  (The sales tax would have to be very high...like 20%.)  That alone could really hurt the economy.  It would also promote buying taxless items, like black-market stuff, or person to person sales.  I think it might be too damaging.

My reason for supporting the VAT has to do with how it helps us compete internationally not farness.

But it would not necessarily result in a flat tax, because of the way I would implement it.  I would not be taxing at all what a poor person spend 75%-95% of their income on...food, clothing, medicine, rent.  For the most part the only things poor people would be paying tax on would be the luxury's they purchase, such as booze, video games ect.  The purchase of used items (thing sold at a loss vs the original price) would not be taxed. (You only pay tax on the Value Added)  So a poor person’s car purchase would not be taxed but someone who buys a new one would be taxed.  Both would pay tax on gas.  I would exempt the use of public transportation (bus, subway) entirely.  But cabs and limos would be taxed. 

Also the plan might tax different things at different rate.  Food at a grocery store is exempt; food at a restaurant 20%.   Commercial passenger airline ticket 20%, private airplane 35%. 

Also I would be eliminating the income tax.  I would keep the inheritance tax. 

Yea, that's how they do state income taxes here. 3% up to XXX, then 4% on the next XXX, then 5% of the last XXX.

So a person making 30,000 after E&D would pay......

3% up to $5000 =  $150
4% from $5001-$10,000 = $200
5% from $10,000 and up = $1000   Total $1,350.00

It would promote saving...and investing...which drives the economy.  And while it would raise prices it would also raise effective income as you would take home more money in your pay check.  That should off-set.  But we would no longer be taxing labor.  Which makes it more appealing to export items from the USA and less appealing to import items into the USA.  Helping domestic manufacturing compete with workers overseas.  

The blackmarket would not be that serious of a problem because the tax is collected at each stage of the distribution chain (like in Europe) not solely at the end purchase (like most state sales taxes)

I like most of this train of thought...but I think taxing restaurant-goers too much could be a problem.


You increase the penalties for that sort of tax evasion to the point where it becomes a real risk...and, imo, people will pay the tax instead of risking a massive fine or jail time.

Actually saving is what this country needs instead of spending. Spending got us into this problem to begin with, people buying shit they didn't need on credit. The powers that be want us to spend money and be in debt. If you do that you are a slave. If you save money, you have much more control of your life. Another problem is that we don't manufacture shit here anymore. In addition to getting rid of obamacare and the war on drugs. I would tax and tarrif the shit out of most imported items to level the playing field and get our industrial and manufacturing base back. Everyone wants to make good money and have cheap shit, you can't have both for too long before it backfires like it has in the last few years.

Being we are getting most of the national revenue from this tax and getting rid of income tax...the standard rate for the tax would be 15-20%.  I would tax restaurants and commerical airlines at the standard rate, and things like private airplanes higher.  Vices items (smoking, booze, gambling) would also get the higher rate.  

Sorry I missed this post, but you are exactly right. You would take home more money. But also it would directly help with unemployment by stimulating domestic manufacturing. I still think that an import tax would still be needed to an extent on imported goods. We all know you have to pay US workers more than the slave labor in different countries, so to offset that you need to take away the incentive to import all this Chinese bullshit. Not to mention that the import tax and tarrifs would increase the government revenue a good bit. Pay the government import tax or pay US workers to build that shit here, your choice. Either way it's good for the country !!!

Import taxes violate our trade agreements.  And this does not fix all of the labor cost imbalance just makes the imbalance smaller.  Unlikely to result in the importation of many jobs...but will slow the exportation of jobs. 

Doesn't solve all our problems...just a step in the right direction. 

I am with you on many things, Badger, but Obamacare hasn't even taken place yet.  It's designed to save money in the long term.  If you want to talk about deficit spending, you have to talk about the military.  That's the big, expendable income that can be cut the easiest.  There's a ton of room to cut, and it's something we wouldn't even miss.

While Obamacare will cost taxpayers, it's money they'd be spending privately anyway, so it's probably close to a wash, overall.  But we don't need to be building jets to occupy every corner of the Earth.  Our military model is unsustainable.

"It will be a wonderful day when schools get all the money they need and the Airforce needs to hold a bakesale to buy a bomber." - poster on my high school economic teachers office wall.   

I say fuck the trade agreements. Agreements and terms change all the time in life. When you are on the brink of collapse you have to do what is necessary to adapt and survive.


A step in the right direction is where we need to go, one at a time. Not 1 step forward 3 steps back. In the end it is better for a person to be employed and have a higher cost of goods because they are made in the US, than it is for a person to be unemployed with super low cost imported goods.

Well, I'll do ya one better on that because I fully agree with you. We should get out of Afghanistan ASAP. Pull all of our troops out of US bases in foreign countries. And stop trying to police the world. Our piece of land and country is the United States, not the whole globe.

As far as Obamacare, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Obamacare is healthcare reform. The United States has the best healthcare in the world. What we needed was insurance reform. Obamacare does include some insurance reform. But in the United States we have the right not to purchase what we don't want to purchase. Besides taxes, we have the right to spend our money on legal goods or not. Obamacare forces people to buy something that they may or may not want, or they are taxed even more by the IRS at tax time. I know our military model is unsustainable, and it does need to change. But, Obamacare is unsustainable also. Insurance rates are already going up more than in the past. I don't know the time line but it seem that the smaller insurance companies will be the first to fall, then the larger ones will fall. After that we will all be on Gubment insurance, cause they know best. I say take my taxes and leave me the hell alone.......

We do?  Please tell that to the department of motor vehicles because I need to renew my plates and they won't without proof of insurance.

You need insurance to protect the other person. In case you hit someone they are protected by liability insurance or if the car is financed and has a lien holder, they are protected by comp and collision. Health insurance is to protect yourself, no one else is involved. Kinda like if you punch yourself in the face it is your choice, but if you punch someone else in the face you will go to jail. Personal decisions that affect only me should be left up to me, stupid or not.

By the way, driving is a privledge not a right. The state allows you to drive in exchange for your agreement to their rules and regulations, ie - implied consent laws.

I would like to agree with you, and I see where you are coming from, but I think that particular model is idealistic and ultimately not realistic.

We kinda have that now.  If someone walks into a hospital without insurance, they will still be treated.  When the cannot pay, the hospitals have to raise their rates, and your insurance goes up anyway.  We already have socialized medicine in a sense.  Since I don't foresee us ever having a country where you're willing to watch your neighbor die from illness if they are broke, then I think that an insurance mandate is the only way to go.

It is very similar to the insurance model for cars we have now.

Unfortunately Dave, if someone can't afford insurance, how can they afford to pay the tax/fine levied by the IRS. So if I can't afford insurance. They tax or fine me because I can't meet the insurance mandate. I still have no money and can't pay the fine. But I still do get health care after all is said and done. So since the tax or fine is obviously going to be less than actually getting insurance, and you can't pay the fine anyway, and your still gonna get seen by the doctor and circumvent the system. What the hell is the point of all of this ? It's a zero sum game........

Should the government mandate anything for citizens to have to buy ??? Not a good idea to let an entity that can't even spend it's own money properly to start telling others how to spend their money.

First of all, I get an extra exemption for having a kid, but not much else.  Most other tax breaks phase out at higher incomes.  You get a personal exemption and a standard deduction, which is supposed to in some way cover the essentials of living, but not anything else.  Why wouldn't my "essentials" exemption increase with each person for whom I must provide? 

Secondly, married filing joint tax rates begin to adjust downward towards single filer rates at the 25% tax bracket (in other words, I, who support other people, eventually end up paying just as much tax on the same amount of taxable income as you, who apparently do not support others.

Third, I'm sure you don't mind paying less for health insurance than I do, right?  Seeing as how I pay for 3 people and you only pay for yourself.  Believe me that my take home pay is considerably less, before and after tax, than the single guy making the same as I do (or even several thousand per year less than I make)

Gotta say, Badger, isolationism hasn't exactly worked out for us in the past.  I can guarantee that the instability caused by troop withdrawals would cost so much more than the cost of keeping us in bases all around the world.

Nah, I think you missed my point. I think that there are too many countries that rely on us and our resources, those days need to end. Now if 4-5 countries for see a common problem they all need to band together and "FIX" the problem. We don't need to be the cowboys of the world stealing oil and imposing our will on the rest of the planet. Why do we have to be an empire ? Just like all the past ones, this one isn't to big to fail either !

Based on what metric?  We do not lead in any categories such as:

- lowest % of uninsured population
- lowest fatality rate from treatable diseases
- highest success rate of curing treatable diseases

"The United States has the best healthcare in the world" is a talking point based on national pride, not measurable statistics.

When do I have the option to opt out of paying for schools, fire departments, police, military, or roads?

There are a vast number of programs that you are forced to pay for in the United States, whether you want to use them or not.  That's how taxes work.  Your argument only exists because Congress chose to continue to allow the private insurance market to exist; if we had went to a single-payer system, you wouldn't "pay anything extra," since you'd automatically be covered.  But the revenue still comes from somewhere.

A major component of that is that people choose not to purchase health insurance, but we (the taxpayers) end up paying for their healthcare anyway (at the emergency room) when they have a stroke or heart attack.

Right now, saying "I don't want to pay for healthcare" is a red herring, in the same way that saying "I don't want to pay for a military" is; whether you pay or not, you benefit from the existing system.

Do these people actually exist?  At the income level where you literally can't afford insurance, the "fine" would simply be less money that you receive in your income tax refund.

By arguing for an exemption for "essentials," you concede that not all income is equal.  Some of your income (the first $XXXXX or so) is used to purchase the essential foundations of daily life, while income over that amount is disposable, used for fun or to further enhance your wealth.

This is the basis of our progressive tax system, and why taxing people at "the same percentage regardless of income" is fundamentally unfair.