Obama lays down the gauntlet.

Alessandra Kelley said:

The money to run the country must come from somewhere. Is it not better to rely on progressive income taxes as a more fair way of raising the money rather than rely solely on regressive sales taxes, which is what we have been pushed towards for thirty years now?

Getting rid of taxes is not an option, not if the country is to continue and thrive.

Click to expand...

Taxes based soley on income makes sense to me, like I said before.

If a person adds to their wealth, then reasonably taxing that additional wealth makes sense. And this goes back to that other thread were I proposed a flat tax on net income, which would be income after a basic allowance for expenses--not expenses incurred (because that varies based upon what people are willing to spend), but reasonable expenses as a calculation based on number of family members and geographic location.

It's a Good Idea[SUP]TM[/SUP]!

Remember that some taxes are meant to curtail the overuse and congestion of services. Gas taxes are meant to fund the roads: those who drive the most must be prepared to pay the most. One shouldn't have to depend on driving 50 miles everyday for their commute - a bit of bad urban planning (homogenous swath zoning) and social malaise (white flight) in the previous century has made the commutes so long.

Gale Haut said:

I actually read this entire thread... I probably shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

kaitie said:

I'm not sure I really believe either side will let the economy fall to shit, but I am pissed off when any (democrat or republican, and they're both saying it) says that they're willing to let the entire country suffer because they don't get their way. That's not their job. Their job is to get off their asses and figure out a way to solve the problem. Instead of making claims that they're going to let things expire so there, they should be reassuring us all that they're going to find a way out of this period--even if it means making a freaking compromise.

I swear, sometimes I feel like congress is filled with two year olds.

Click to expand...

Bolded, mine. Amen, sister!!! Sheesh.

kaitie said:

Republicans are doing this because they are so anti-tax period. They've gotten to the point where they point-blank say that they will not accept any tax increase on anyone as any part of a balanced budget whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the only reason they are so anti-tax, period, is because the majority of Americans seem to think that if we have no taxes, all our problems will be solved. this is NOT the case.

I'm not even against a little bit of a tax hike because we need to find some way of paying back our debt. Our nation and all the states are in debt, yet the entire infrastructure needs restructuring, not to mention another million things. We need to increase taxes somewhat. To everyone. IMO.

Chrissy said:

Taxes based soley on income makes sense to me, like I said before.

Click to expand...

What I think you're saying is this - if I were to suddenly inherit $3 million dollars, I shouldn't be taxed based on what I inherited because I'm still only making $18/hour? I should still be taxes based on that?

If that's what you're saying...I can go with that.

I think.

Except for all those rich people who inherited tons of money and haven't worked a day in their lives. Trust fund babies. Think Paris Hilton. She doesn't even have a freakin' income. Or barely. Whatever she got from those stupid reality shows and the book. Which can't be much. It certainly wouldn't be fair to tax her based on an income of, say $100k/year when she has millions sitting in the bank, would it? Especially when that $100k was "earned" by being a snotty blonde. Seriously. Ugh.

Is that what is happening currently? I don't even know. I thought it WAS based on income. I mean, I know if you inherit money, you have to pay taxes on that...but only the one time, right?

So trust fund babies that don't do shit for a living...how are they taxed?

Xelebes said:

One shouldn't have to depend on driving 50 miles everyday for their commute - a bit of bad urban planning (homogenous swath zoning) and social malaise (white flight) in the previous century has made the commutes so long.

Click to expand...

My 80 mile (round trip) commute has nothing to do with either of these factors. I was born, raised, and raised my own family in a city that is 40 miles away from a larger metropolitan area. The economy in my city has declined so that the number of jobs is very low, whereas there are more in the larger city. Rather than uproot my family, I choose to commute to the larger city where I work. Based on the number of cars traveling at the same time as I, a lot of people are in this situation.

There are plenty of reasons for long commutes other than white flight and poor urban planning.

Alpha Echo said:

What I think you're saying is this - if I were to suddenly inherit $3 million dollars, I shouldn't be taxed based on what I inherited because I'm still only making $18/hour? I should still be taxes based on that?

If that's what you're saying...I can go with that.

I think.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you think about it... if a person inherits $3 million, even if it's from a family member, that person HAS increased his or her own wealth. So I'd say, tax it.

Right now we have an estate (inheritance tax) exemption of up to $5 million. Used to be $1 million, Bush raised it through 2012. The rate used to be 55%, Bush lowered it to 35%.

The tax is charged to the estate, and then the balance is given "tax free" to the beneficiary.

Seems kind of stupid to me. Why not just make gifts and inheritances the equivalent of income to the recipient, taxed to the recipient?

Except for all those rich people who inherited tons of money and haven't worked a day in their lives. Trust fund babies. Think Paris Hilton. She doesn't even have a freakin' income. Or barely. Whatever she got from those stupid reality shows and the book. Which can't be much. It certainly wouldn't be fair to tax her based on an income of, say $100k/year when she has millions sitting in the bank, would it? Especially when that $100k was "earned" by being a snotty blonde. Seriously. Ugh.

Click to expand...

She has income, what accumulates on her wealth through investments, and what is earned by the companies she owns. If it was taxed at flat rate, same as other forms of income, I doubt anyone would complain.

Is that what is happening currently? I don't even know. I thought it WAS based on income. I mean, I know if you inherit money, you have to pay taxes on that...but only the one time, right?

Click to expand...

If a person dies on or before December 31, 2012, and leaves exactly $5 million dollars to his sole (snotty, blonde) daughter, NO TAX would be due.

My point of "income tax only" was to get rid of regressive taxes like sales tax and gas tax. Also I complained above about property tax. It doesn't even make logical sense to me that a property a person owns, year after year, is taxed, year after year.

So trust fund babies that don't do shit for a living...how are they taxed?

Click to expand...

Currently, investment income is tax at a max of 15%. They might also have ordinary income, taxed at ordinary rates, from being owners of certain business entities -- S Corporations, Partnerships, LLCs (even though they don't actually "work," the income is allocated to them).

Alpha...? Alpha...? Oh no, I put her to sleep!

Chrissy said:

Alpha...? Alpha...? Oh no, she's asleep!

Click to expand...

I'm here! And thank you for answering my questions. I truly had no idea and wanted to know. I mean, I know I've heard of investment taxes and stuff, but I didn't know how it worked, nor did I really think about that in terms of those trust fund babies.

I kinda agree with you on the property tax. To an extent. I just wish...I don't mind the taxes so long as they are going to fund government programs. Ones we need. Things we need. Education. Paying teachers what they're worth. Infrastructure. Medicare and medical research. Renewable energy research.

IDK. There's a lot out there. I agree it's frustrating to pay taxes on your home and land every year, but at the same time, I see why it's necessary.

Does that make any sense at all?

I am not very educated in all this stuff. All I know is that I do not mind paying taxes so that we all help keep this country in motion. I just don't want to pay so many that we can't afford to fill up my car to drive to work.

I also believe in the other part of this Fiscal Cliff - some programs have to be cut. Some I think could be cut completely, others I believe would be better served by merely cutting corners.

My husband is better at this than me, and he thinks it's all very simple. Though I'd have to ask him to explain exactly what he'd do and how it's all simple again because I don't get it. It's all very complicated to me.

Man my thinking cap isn't on today or something.

That's a sweet attitude to have, IMO. I think about these things waaaay too much. I mean, if I had my way I'd be out of job! The complexity of all the various taxes and tax compliance puts food on my table.

And I do often contemplate the "fairness" of things, maybe to a fault.

Someone remind me how Life Isn't Fair again....

Chrissy said:

Someone remind me how Life Isn't Fair again....

Click to expand...

Imagine my father saying in his matter-of-fact way while he shakes his head and shrugs his shoulders, "Chrissy, nobody said life was fair."

Alpha Echo said:

Imagine my father saying in his matter-of-fact way while he shakes his head and shrugs his shoulders, "Chrissy, nobody said life was fair."

Click to expand...

That oughta hold me for a while, thanks.

Roger J Carlson said:

My 80 mile (round trip) commute has nothing to do with either of these factors. I was born, raised, and raised my own family in a city that is 40 miles away from a larger metropolitan area. The economy in my city has declined so that the number of jobs is very low, whereas there are more in the larger city. Rather than uproot my family, I choose to commute to the larger city where I work. Based on the number of cars traveling at the same time as I, a lot of people are in this situation.

There are plenty of reasons for long commutes other than white flight and poor urban planning.

Click to expand...

Well, it is a cost any which way.

Xelebes said:

Well, it is a cost any which way.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it.

Chrissy said:

I'd like all the tax cuts to continue. So I'm cool with waiting a little longer to see if that could be accomplished.

Click to expand...

Well, fine. That's a defensible position. But if that's also the Republican positon, it's not the White House who's playing chicken.

rugcat said:

I see libertarianism as more a combination of "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you," "You're not the boss of me," and "I have no responsibility to the society I live in, except for those things I wish to have."

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a derail. But an important axiom of libertarian thinking, it seems to me, is: it is typically feasible to live so that you are not affected in any way by the actions of other people. And if that were true, a lot of the things libertarians argue would totally fall into place, like Don's/Long's formulation.

Chrissy said:

I proposed a flat tax on net income, which would be income after a basic allowance for expenses--not expenses incurred (because that varies based upon what people are willing to spend), but reasonable expenses as a calculation based on number of family members and geographic location.

It's a Good Idea[SUP]TM[/SUP]!

Click to expand...

I actually agree with that, though I doubt we'd agree on the specifics (my rate is confiscatory, and my set of deductions overtly makes social policy).

calieber said:

This is a bit of a derail. But an important axiom of libertarian thinking, it seems to me, is: it is typically feasible to live so that you are not affected in any way by the actions of other people. And if that were true, a lot of the things libertarians argue would totally fall into place, like Don's/Long's formulation.

Click to expand...

[derail]

Actually, libertarians are strong proponents of voluntary association of any kind. AAMOF, absent a strong central authority, peaceful cooperation and voluntary association is how a society gets things done. I'd bet most of your activities are fundamentally libertarian in nature. Make note of how much you do that's peaceful and voluntary, versus how many of your actions are prescribed by law or by someone else you involuntarily associate with.

I know many libertarians who are active in their neighborhoods, their towns, even (gasp!) their churches, charities, and other civic organizations. I don't know any libertarian hermits... not a one.

Even the most extreme portrayal popularly associated with libertarians, Ayn Rand's supposedly anti-social superheros (and Rand was an Objectivist who despised "libertarians," conflating them with libertines) voluntarily associate with and value their relationships with such non-super characters as Eddie Willers, Jeff Allen (a tramp), Cherryl Brooks (dime store shopgirl), even the fishwife. Galt's Gulch is a cooperative society, not a bunch of individuals each hiding in their own cubbyhole. And Objectivism, insofar as it aligns with libertarianism, is far on the anti-social end of the scale.

The "every libertarian is an island" meme gets old when it's supported in neither libertarian philosophical writings or non-libertarian fiction that people claim is libertarian. I'm not sure where it comes from, actually, other than a total intentional misunderstanding by a lot of people who issue opinions of libertarians without having any real familiarity with the topic.

What libertarians object to is compelled association, pure and simple. Here's a brief statement of principle from libertarianism.org. (That link is worth a quick read for anyone who wants to go beyond the hype, btw.)

In a sense there have always and ever been only two political philosophies: liberty and power. Either people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the equal rights of others, or some people should be able to use force to make other people act in ways they wouldn’t choose.

Click to expand...

Libertarians believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit as long as they respect the equal rights of others. Full stop.

That doesn't mean they support crony capitalism, think charity is for suckers, want to live on an island all by themselves, or any of the other myths propagated by those who fear individual freedom.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that if I defined either liberals or conservatives with the vitrole often used to speak of libertarians here, I'd rightly be called down by the mods. Just making up shit and claiming that's what libertarianism represents is bullshit.

...and whenever that occurs, I'm going to make an effort to set things straight.
[/derail]