TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smells Like Socialist Spirit
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the fair share is what is legally determined. since the AMT is part of that legal determination you are paying your 'fair share' under the AMT. stop with the BS that the AMT isn't fair because it is fair. those deductions you get, which you claim complicate the code and should be eliminated, are presents from congress. you aren't entitled to them as a matter of absolute right.

Which takes us back to the Fair Tax, or something like it...a simple, easy to apply standard that gets around all of the loopholes and complexities that only serve to worsen the current code. My point above was that I played completely within the rules and did not take "excessive" deductions (particularly since TurboTax told me that I was taking far fewer deductions than most people comparable to me in filing). I paid full income taxes. I would expect that, if the current code is clean and functional, that someone with a pretty standard return like my own would not get hit with some alternative "gotcha" tax as I did nothing to try to minimize or lower my tax liability.

For the record, I still got a refund (which is stupid anyway, but is another topic), but was deducted on my refund b/c some "fair minded" congressman decided I should take an incremental hit.

Hypothetically, what is wrong with someone taking a bunch of itemizations on things like donations and the like, provided they are legitimate and properly accounted for, to minimize their taxable liability? Is it simply unfair because the government didn't explicitly receive a revenue contribution? Did said person not part with an amount of their property in the name of the common good? Doesn't this fill a hole that would otherwise be filled, or possibly ignored, by government funding from taxes? Isn't it a social contribution? Why is it less significant?

Do you believe that "fair" is simply whatever some authoritative figure in Washington says it is?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hypothetically, what is wrong with someone taking a bunch of itemizations on things like donations and the like, provided they are legitimate and properly accounted for, to minimize their taxable liability? Is it simply unfair because the government didn't explicitly receive a revenue contribution? Did said person not part with an amount of their property in the name of the common good? Doesn't this fill a hole that would otherwise be filled, or possibly ignored, by government funding from taxes? Isn't it a social contribution? Why is it less significant? Do you believe that "fair" is simply whatever some authoritative figure in Washington says it is?

the begs the question. is it unfair because they take a present away which you used to have? or it it unfair that they never give you a present to begin with?

fair is whatever we accept. i admit that our utlization of taxes is severely mismanaged. so i can understand if you think your taxes are unfair given taxes aren't currently being utlized for the best social purposes.

I think you and I have gross differences of opinion on what the definition of fair is.

I can appreciate your analogy to a "present," though I don't think I view that as a fair or unfair element. It is part of the rules in place, and as I said I play by the rules. I think that people who do not play by the rules are not necessarily playing fairly, however that does not mean that I think the rules in and of themselves are "fair" in an absolute sense. I hope that makes sense.

Edit: Since I am still steamed about it: A case in point of rules being fine to adhere to, but sometimes displaying their unfairness. Last weekend the Falcons played the Eagles. The Falcons were down by 6 points with a little over 2 minutes to go in the game. They put up a tremendous 3 down stand, forcing Philly to punt, giving them a shot at scoring on a final possession. The Falcons used their final timeout to stop the clock in order to maximize the amount of time they'd have to control the ball. When Philly punted, the Atlanta returner started to attempt to catch the punt, but at the last second, decided against it and backed off. The ball hit the ground and the refs (incorrectly) thought that the Atlanta receiver touched the ball. Philly proceeded to recover the ball, the punt was ruled a muff, and Philly gained possession only to score 2 plays later, effectively ending Atlanta's hopes for a comeback.

The catch: Since Atlanta had used its final timeout, they were ineligible to use any of their remaining challenges. Since there were more than 2 minutes left in the game, there was no chance that the booth upstairs would review the play. Upon review several times on TV from many angles, it was obvious that the Atlanta receiver did NOT touch the ball and that therefore Atlanta SHOULD have regained possession of the ball at the point where Philly touched it. Unfortunately, with no way to challenge the play within the rules, there was no way to overturn a blatantly poor call. Thus everybody played perfectly by the rules, but the rules resulted in a horribly unfair outcome.




But at least we got this in there for good measure.


/rant.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If you introduce a flat rate of income tax, those previously in the top bracket will pay less of a % meaning they take more money home than before. Those previously in the bottom bracket will have to pay more so they will take less home than before. The gap between rich and poor therefore increases

I would propose that the gap grows because socialist-like tax policies ironically push the coveted top 5% into hiding, leaving the middle-class holding the bag (yet again).

Clinton had this exact same problem when he promised a middle tax cut in 92' only to raise the taxes on the middle class in 93'.
Anyone care to guess what will happen with Obama's 'promise'?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would propose that the gap grows because socialist-like tax policies ironically push the coveted top 5% into hiding, leaving the middle-class holding the bag (yet again). Clinton had this exact same problem when he promised a middle tax cut in 92' only to raise the taxes on the middle class in 93'. Anyone care to guess what will happen with Obama's 'promise'?

Wrong on all counts...

Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. CLICK

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States. Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families. The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006. Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation. The act also provided tax relief for education savings and retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997. CLICK

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wrong on all counts... Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. CLICK The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States. Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families. The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006. Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation. The act also provided tax relief for education savings and retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997. CLICK

To this day it never ceases to amaze me how republicans continually try to claim credit for balancing the budget during the Clinton years through legislative majority after the fact ...

socialist socialist socialist!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would propose that the gap grows because socialist-like tax policies ironically push the coveted top 5% into hiding, leaving the middle-class holding the bag (yet again).

But that's not socialism then is it? That's a tax policy that favours the rich. You need a progressive tax policy with no loopholes for the rich otherwise it simply is not socialist in the slightest. What we have today is an ideology prevalent (in all our countries in the West I would argue) that says "what's good for the rich and business is good for the rest". That's why our governments are so reluctant to close loopholes for the rich because they're on their side...

You also seem to be suggesting that those at the top do not pay enough tax and should shoulder more of the burden, and with that I can agree with you

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt socialist socialist socialist!

I need to find one of these rallies so I can fuck with idiots.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/10...west-level.html

quote:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show that the total effective federal tax rate of the middle fifth of households declined after 2001 to its lowest levels since at least 1979, Congressman Jim Saxton, ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, said today. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax relief legislation, the income tax as a share of income for the middle fifth also has fallen to its lowest levels in decades (see chart above, click to enlarge). In 2005, the CBO data indicate that in the middle fifth, the total effective tax rate -- the share of federal taxes as a percent of income -- was 14.2%, while the effective individual income tax rate was 3.0%. These figures compare to 2000 levels of 16.6% and 5.0%, respectively. Between 2003 and 2005, the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth edged up, but still remained far below the levels of the previous 24 years. �The CBO analysis shows that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have lowered the tax burden on middle income taxpayers to the lowest levels since at least the late 1970s,� Saxton said. �The CBO tax figures, put into historical perspective, also show that the income tax burden of middle income households has been reduced to its lowest levels in many years,� Saxton concluded. The total effective tax rate includes income, payroll, and excise taxes. The CBO tax numbers do have limitations, and it should be recalled that most households do not remain in a specific quintile for extended periods of time. ~From the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (no link available yet)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SQYX5ME4K6I/AAAAAAAAHkc/9ibqYn9yFB0/s1600-h/tax2.bmp

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.