[Bowtorc]

Originally Posted by retired 123

So, you raise $132 billion for the year, and Congress spends it in a minute. What have you accomplished?

How about no spending: on illegals - No aid without drug test Congress lives like we do stop use of military transportation for useless trips by officials. Everyone on public assistance works for local community or federal . no more pork allowed in bills!!!!
Lots of things could be done if we vote in the right people. I don't pretend to know who all of the right ones are but voting for the man and not the party would be a great start.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Just to clarify, if you sell a stock within a year of purchase (not 30 days) the gain is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. Also, the wash sale rule is not new. It has been in effect for almost 30 years.

Thanks - For the record please no one take my post as advice on how to day trade and that I'm up on the rules. Been a long time since I dabbled in that arena. My point was day traders were typically looked at as the bad guys even unpatriotic. There was some loopholes they got to duck under but that is pretty much cleaned up. They were an easy mark for someone to blame if the market went into a sudden downturn.

[gatorbill1]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Are you referring to the tax cut bill in 2017? I don't think there was another tax cut last year.

yes

[petsetc]

Personally-I like the concept.

Another idea, in addition to...when I was in business, the counties I operated in charged a BPOL tax (Business & Professional Occupancy). It was a fairly small amount, currently 0.2% on GROSS revenues.

I suggest the Feds do this to ALL individuals and corporations at the Adjusted Gross Income line and apply it directly to the national debt (and yes I understand Congress will quickly find a way to p**s it away).

If you make $100K, you pay $200 towards debt, if a corporation generates $100M in US activities, and turns "no profit", they still pay $200K. It becomes a "charge" for doing business in the USA.

JMHO

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by blueash

The last time the US gov't had a surplus was a stretch from 1998, 99, 2000, and 2001. Every other year from 1970 to 1997, and every year from 2002 - now have run at deficits. Those 4 good years should be credited to both parties. Clinton was President and the GOP controlled Congress. They actually worked well together on economic issues. Both sides gave in on things they would have liked.

In 2001 the laws were changed because of a belief then that the gov't should not have a surplus and the money should be returned to the people.
As President to be Bush wrote in 1999 :

"There are only two things that can be done with a surplus. It can be used by government, as the president [Clinton] proposes. Or it can be used by Americans, to save and build and invest. As you can see from this tax plan, I have made my choice. I choose the creation of wealth, over the care and feeding of government."

Since the tax changes of 2001 were enacted, no surplus has occurred, no paying down the debt. Additional significant unanticipated costs have also created debt, 9-11, the Iraq and Afghan wars, Medicare expansion to cover drug costs, and more. And more tax cuts.

So I am offering for your consideration a tax increase. I know in some circles there is never a reason to increase taxes. I actually believe in taxation and in trying to get it equitable. Gracie thinks I should only offer opinions on medicine. Fair enough. But I'd even like to hear hers about a stock transaction tax. I'd have no problem with wording in the legislation limiting the income from this tax to use in lowering the debt for those who worry it would just be diverted into general funds.

Ever hear about the debt ceiling? It is legislation that limits the amount of Federal debt to a specific amount. The problem is that Congress passes new legislation almost every year to raise the limit.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Ever hear about the debt ceiling? It is legislation that limits the amount of Federal debt to a specific amount. The problem is that Congress passes new legislation almost every year to raise the limit.

Yes, I am aware of the debt ceiling. It gets increased to prevent default. But you raise an interesting question. As these stimulus bills are spending trillions without any adjustment to income, how are they fitting under the debt ceiling limitations? So I looked it up.

I had forgotten that Congress and Trump suspended the debt ceiling in 2019 for two years. So right now there is no debt ceiling. We can borrow and spend whatever is needed that can pass Congress and get signed.

My modest suggestion would decrease the debt, so the ceiling, when it returns, would be benefitted.

[retiredguy123]

In my opinion, the only way to get everyone focused on the debt is to require everyone to pay taxes. This could be done with a national sales tax. There are too many people who pay no tax, so why would they care how much money the Government spends?

[petsetc]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

In my opinion, the only way to get everyone focused on the debt is to require everyone to pay taxes. This could be done with a national sales tax. There are too many people who pay no tax, so why would they care how much money the Government spends?

Problem with a National Sales Tax is it is regressive. I believe taxing needs to be done at the top-line. It'll hurt me, but it's the only way.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by petsetc

Problem with a National Sales Tax is it is regressive. I believe taxing needs to be done at the top-line. It'll hurt me, but it's the only way.

I agree. But, my point is that, when people pay no tax, they have no stake in the game, and their vote can be bought because they don't care how much money the Government spends. You can raise taxes all you want, and Congress can spend it faster than you bring it in.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

Great idea! Where do you feel the surplus should come from? I mean before you can run a surplus, you have to pay off the debt. You have to have a 0 balance, before you can have a +1 balance.

Who should pay for this? Seriously, I'm totally game to consider and assume and play the numbers game.

My idea for your proposal:

Impose a luxury tax on all "new" motor vehicles with an MSRP over $35,000. Make that a 1% luxury tax. And if the MSRP is over $50k, make it a 1.5 luxury tax. For vehicles with an MSRP of over $100k (Bentley, anyone?) make it a 2% luxury tax.

Impose a 1% income tax on all income, PRE-deduction, on any salary over $200,000. Take that 1% right off the top, and THEN you can do all your deductions as usual. No one earning more than $200k per year in salary should be getting so many deductions that they don't pay anything in income tax. This guarantees that they'll pay *something* and that whatever amount it is, won't put them in the poor house.

Impose an additional 1% tax on all income derived from interest, capital gains, stock dividends, PRE-deduction. If you cashed it in, you pay a tax on it. Period. Deduct to your heart's delight AFTER the coffers get their first 1%.

Reduce the deductions available to corporations to a 1% minimum. That way, if a corporation does a bang-up job at generating revenue and is able to find every possible tax loophole to avoid paying any tax - they'll still be on the hook for 1% of their gross receipts.

Add a millionaire tax - not on millionaires who HAVE over 1M - but rather, anyone who EARNS more than 1M per year. These days, it's not uncommon for somewhat wealthy people to have more than a million in assets, and still only be earning a modest (by today's standards) salaries, and put their kids through law school and cover the cost of a yearly vacation without a headache. But I'm talking about the people who earn that much in a single year, on a yearly basis.

If you earned over 1m (gross) in 2018 AND you earned 1m in 2019 (gross) then you hit the jackpot. And you should pay for it. You can pay however little you can get away with paying on the first $500k - but anything over that will cost you a 5% pre-deduction tax. So if you can manage to not pay any income tax at all on the first $500k, you did a good job (or your accountant did, anyway) and congrats. You'll still be on the hook for 5% of the rest, and that 5% can't be offset by deductions.

Then - the whole medical insurance thing. If you have MORE than a certain amount of money, and choose not to buy into health insurance, you can just go ahead and kick in $1000/month to the pool. That way - god forbid you end up with a disease that keeps you alive for a LONG time - but only at so much expense that you end up losing your mansion and housekeeper and Bentley - you'll be covered. And if you don't get sick, that money can cover the housekeeper, who you're probably paying off the books anyway.

[Number 10 GI]

How many times does it have to happen before you realize that when taxes are raised the congress spends it not to reduce the deficit but for pork projects and vote buying? Where have you "more tax" people been living, under a rock? For years now the congress keeps raising the debt ceiling and the "more tax" people clamor for more taxes to lower the national debt that never happens. When it gets to the point where taxes eat up all your income leaving you with an existence wage will you finally realize you have been fooled?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree. But, my point is that, when people pay no tax, they have no stake in the game, and their vote can be bought because they don't care how much money the Government spends. You can raise taxes all you want, and Congress can spend it faster than you bring it in.

I don't understand the mental gymnastics that says a low income person will vote for a politician who supports policies that will benefit them economically, and that is terrible; but a rich person who votes for a politician that helps rich people is a virtuous example to be emulated.
It seems to me that a poor person has much more justification voting in their economic self interest than a rich one. For the poor it means survival. For the rich is means a nicer car or a larger estate.

[vilger]

I think it is obvious how the deficit will be resolved. After the next election, there will be significant changes (cuts) to Medicare and Social Security because that is where the money is. The 2017 tax cut exploded the deficit even before Covid 19. I remember Trump saying that it would generate 3%, 4%, even 5% growth which it never did. Corporations used most of the benefits to do stock buybacks as they stated they would, instead of capex.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by blueash

I don't understand the mental gymnastics that says a low income person will vote for a politician who supports policies that will benefit them economically, and that is terrible; but a rich person who votes for a politician that helps rich people is a virtuous example to be emulated.
It seems to me that a poor person has much more justification voting in their economic self interest than a rich one. For the poor it means survival. For the rich is means a nicer car or a larger estate.

I agree with everything you said. But, I don't see how it is inconsistent with my point.

[DianeM]

I think it’s time we considered a flat tax rate for EVERYONE of perhaps 10%

If you earn $100 - you owe $10
If you earn $1000 - you owe $100
If you earn $10,000 - you owe $1000
Etcetera

No deductions for anything.