[blueash]

Originally Posted by 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?

As was shown above, there were 4 years of surpluses at the end of the Clinton years. The deficit returned not because of increased spending but rather because of decreased tax revenue in 2001-2002.

[Lark7]

I believe that our national debt represents a security issue as well as a financial issue. I am not a learned individual but let us solicit the best of minds behind the solutions - maybe a citizen driven issue in that the legislators will just kick the can down the road.

[blueash]

retiredguy123
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.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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

Your point was, if I understood it correctly, that poor people paying no tax were having their votes bought by politicians who supported policies that helped the poor. I am suggesting that it is even less virtuous to have wealthy people having their votes bought by politicians who will support policies that help rich people.

If poor people paid a small tax do you think that would in any way change the economic calculation of whom they would support? Of course not. So your suggestion that non-tax payers are specially susceptible to having their votes bought lacks support. But I am pleased to see we are in basic agreement that all politicians make economic promises in the hope that voters will see how those promises will benefit their own family. As I watch a large percentage of my neighbors cheating within the letter of the law to have their old roofs replaced while railing against welfare mothers and people who don't pay taxes, I see hypocrisy.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by blueash

As was shown above, there were 4 years of surpluses at the end of the Clinton years. The deficit returned not because of increased spending but rather because of decreased tax revenue in 2001-2002.

The budget and deficit has gone up every year or haven't you noticed.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

Apparently you didn't read my post. What exactly do you not understand about the difference between cutting spending versus increasing taxes? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by 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.

That sounds great, if you can afford to pay 10% tax with no deductions. Some of us are paying 20% on our after-deduction "adjusted gross income" and don't have the opportunity to save.

Some are in even worse situations, and not being able to take a "standard deduction" could mean they lose their homes.

That might be okay by you, but are you willing to have those newly homeless people sleeping on YOUR front yard?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Apparently you didn't read my post. What exactly do you not understand about the difference between cutting spending versus increasing taxes? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Again - I'm asking for verbs in sentences here. What do you propose the government cut, to make up for the multi-trillion-dollar deficit AND produce a surplus?

Should they cut health care subsidies? Careful with your answer: millions of people are healthy because they can afford health care, currently. If you say cut them - be prepared to have sick people in your community who can't afford to get well, shopping at the same stores you shop at, sleeping on the benches you sit at when the squares are open, washing themselves in the public restrooms you visit when you're out and have to go, begging on street corners you have to stop at while waiting for traffic to allow you to cross...

Or how about we just cut out all public education funding? Let the rich send their kids to school and people who are "anything other than rich" - including middle class, can just home-school, quit their jobs, become poor, and hope to die young so they don't have to endure suffering for the rest of their lives as uneducated plebians/servants/indentured slaves.

I know - let's just get rid of military spending. We don't need no stankin Navy, amirite? Except - we do.

We could tell Congress and Senate no more salaries - but all their salaries combined, including that of their secretaries, the mail room clerk, and the cafeteria workers - don't even put a dent into the first trillion dollars of the debt.

We can call in all the debts owed to us by other countries...
but then they will no longer be beholden to us, and the current administration hasn't exactly made friends with the ones who owe us the most so maybe that's a bad idea.

So - what exactly do you propose our country cut, that will equal not just the deficit, but create a positive balance?

[petsetc]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is regressive taxation. Hits the poor disproportionately.

[DianeM]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That sounds great, if you can afford to pay 10% tax with no deductions. Some of us are paying 20% on our after-deduction "adjusted gross income" and don't have the opportunity to save.

Some are in even worse situations, and not being able to take a "standard deduction" could mean they lose their homes.

That might be okay by you, but are you willing to have those newly homeless people sleeping on YOUR front yard?

Do you not get that you would no longer have to worry about 20% rate on after deductions because there would be no need for deductions. A flat tax makes perfect sense to me and would basically be the new payroll tax. If no one has deductions - and I mean no one - it’s a level playing field. The lesser paid is in the same boat as the mogul. Works well. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more, you pay more.

[DianeM]

Originally Posted by petsetc

This is regressive taxation. Hits the poor disproportionately.

Ummm could you explain that one. 10% is 10%. We’d all be level in responsibility. No deductions for ANY ONE. If you make less, you owe less. If you make more, you pay more.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by DianeM

Do you not get that you would no longer have to worry about 20% rate on after deductions because there would be no need for deductions. A flat tax makes perfect sense to me and would basically be the new payroll tax. If no one has deductions - and I mean no one - it’s a level playing field. The lesser paid is in the same boat as the mogul. Works well. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more, you pay more.

Perhaps you've enjoyed the privilege of never being tax exempt due to poverty. What you're suggesting is people who earn poverty rate, having to actually be even MORE poverty-stricken by not being allowed the standard deduction - which gives them a refund of the taxes they did pay, if any.

Being poverty-stricken is not something I'd recommend to anyone. Having to pay taxes for the privilege of being poor is just - nasty.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by DianeM

Ummm could you explain that one. 10% is 10%. We’d all be level in responsibility. No deductions for ANY ONE. If you make less, you owe less. If you make more, you pay more.

...................and the wealthy do as they have always done to avoid paying their fair share.
They ship their money offshore.
The average working person always picks up the tab!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

How did we pay for it 10 years ago?

The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower.

[noslices1]

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by noslices1

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

That's one way of paying down the national debt.