Republicans plan massive tax code overhaul

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Just because somebody is rich doesn’t mean it’s helpful to treat him as evil. The horrors of the 20th Century should have taught us that.

And “offense” is often in the eye of the beholder. Regardless, I doubt there is a person in this country who doesn’t say something someone could take to offense at least daily. Nor is there a person other than a desert rat who pans for gold who doesn’t “use” others in some manner. We’re social beings, and that’s the way it works. It isn’t always a bad thing.

I think it’s probably wise to see what Trump and Ryan and the others come up with before prejudging the practicalities and effects.
Click to expand...
And just because someone is rich doesn’t make them not evil.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Mt 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
(New American Bible Revised Edition)
Click to expand...
I would note that there is a big difference between willing giving of your property and having your property forcibly taken from you. It’s the difference between charity and theft. I would also note that the context of the verse that passage is taken is how man’s efforts are inadequate to gain salvation. Salvation can only come from God. It was not a general commandment against owning property.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
OK. Then the only relevant statistic to quote is that the earners of 11.5% of the income paid 3℅ of the income taxes. It still shows the tax structure is progressive, but not quite as progressive as 50% vs 3% suggests. Citing the 3% figure without the 11.5% is just misleading.
Click to expand...
According to this chart, anyone making less than $167,728 should have their taxes raised.
 
sallybutler said:
Just because it is legal doesn’t mean it is right. You are suggesting that taxing higher earning people more is wrong. Well, if it is made a law, than it is okay and no longer wrong???

I am suggesting that deductions fall into the same category as taxing higher earnings. both are either stealing other peoples money or they are not.
Click to expand...
Deductions is not stealing anyone’s money. If it is a deduction, that simply means it is not owed and REMAINS the property of the owner.

This is the problem with the income tax: the perception that one’s money belongs to the government unless the government lets one keep it. The obvious example recently is Trump. It isnt that he owed money but the tax laws allowed him to keep it. The reality is he never owed the money. It is his money until he is required to pay taxes.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
OK. Then the only relevant statistic to quote is that the earners of 11.5% of the income paid 3℅ of the income taxes. It still shows the tax structure is progressive, but not quite as progressive as 50% vs 3% suggests. Citing the 3% figure without the 11.5% is just misleading.
Click to expand...
Gee, I posted the link. I cited the source. :rolleyes:
 
JonNC said:
Gee, I posted the link. I cited the source. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You did not post the 11.5% figure, only the irrelevant 50% figure. The intent to emphasize the irrelevant figure and downplay the relevant one is clear by which figure you posted prominently and which figure you left in the link. The fact is, it is not so bad that 50% of the people paid 3% of the taxes.
 
sallybutler said:
The real problem is people want government services now, but they don’t want to pay now. This includes money for defense, interstate highways, national parks, training programs, flood, fire, tornado help, clean water, clean air, mortgage relief, etc. We are more than happy to take, but when it comes to paying, all of a sudden we all say, hey, it’s my money.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You did not post the 11.5% figure, only the irrelevant 50% figure. The intent to emphasize the irrelevant figure and downplay the relevant one is clear by which figure you posted prominently and which figure you left in the link. The fact is, it is not so bad that 50% of the people paid 3% of the taxes.
Click to expand...
I’ve posted the link. Twice now. If the 50% figure is irrelevant, then so is the 1% figure.
But this kind of exchange just st shows how divisive, how destructive the income tax is.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m not sure what that all really means. Some account needs to be taken of the degree to which those percentages take advantage of the various tax deductions and “Loopholes” to avoid taxation. And, we would also have to factor in what good those “loopholes” do.

One that a number of people around here do is raise a modest number of beef cattle. This is a very big beef-raising area for a number of reasons. There are lots of people of moderate to relatively high incomes who have some amount of land and raise cattle on it. For many, there is a constant effort to improve the land and the breeding stock, which costs money. They usually get to deduct those expenses. One might question the social and economic utility of that, but over the long run it really does improve production, quality and the condition of the land and water. Is it worth it to the government? I don’t think we know.

It’s very hard to put a “price” to that kind of thing. Same thing with people who buy run-down housing and fix it up to re-sell or rent. They get a lot of deductions for that, but one could argue that it increases the supply of decent housing, and thus serves a social and economic purpose.

To my understanding, the tax code is a maze of those kinds of things, plus all sorts or arcane provisions that benefit only a few.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between legitimate business deductions and loopholes. For example, most commercial property owners can depreciate their property over a 39 year period. But several years ago, Congress decided that NASCAR racetrack owners can depreciate their tracks over a seven year period. There does not appear to be an economic rationale for this. Or consider the mortgage interest deduction. There is no reason why we ought to give leveraged homeowners a tax break, but it is a historical artifact that serves no real purpose.
 
JonNC said:
Welcome to the forums, but this is just more of the tired drumbeat of class warfare that progressives regularly employ.
Look at the facts: the top 10% of income earners pay nearly 3/4 of the income taxes. The rich are not getting richer because of the tax code. A majority of the wealthy supported Hillary Clinton this year. Both parties have wealthy people in them.

I hope he does touch them. I hope he lowers the marginal tax rates and corporate tax rates so the status quo is no longer an annual growth of the GDP of 1.5%.

I’m sure we can covince the progressives to change their ways. 👍

Take note: the tax code that he benefited from was under Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jon, as the voice or reason and the facts. The tax code he benefited was under Bill Clinton.
 
JonNC said:
And if one looks at the income, it is obvious the problem is spending
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s always easy to spend money belonging to other people and in the mind of SOME those rich people in this country… Go to another poverty ridden country and tell me the definition of rich. Some people at the poverty level here would be considered wealthy elsewhere.
 
JonNC said:
And if one looks at the income, it is obvious the problem is spending
Click to expand...
Spending will never come under control as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats. Both parties are more than happy to throw our grandchildren under the bus.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Spending will never come under control as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats. Both parties are more than happy to throw our grandchildren under the bus.
Click to expand...
Seems to be the case. If we wish to talk about immorality in government, here is an excellent example. The issue is not we must raise more money. The issue is we must make our spending match our income.

I think we’re knocking on the doors of our great grandchildren. It will be difficult to pay back in excess of $100 trillion in debt.
 
JonNC said:
I think we’re knocking on the doors of our great grandchildren. It will be difficult to pay back in excess of $100 trillion in debt.
Click to expand...
Didn’t one of the presidential candidates suggest we merely default on this debt? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top