Taxes- Paying Your Fair Share

[Minor Axis]

I remember when I was in the Navy, most Squadrons had a weekend Duty Pilot who supposed to be available when something unexpected came up and we needed a pilot. Well one weekend I was the Duty Officer and I needed this pilot to fly an airplane from point A to B, but he was no where to be found. Instead I ended up sending a guy who had just gotten home from a trip. In a squadron based on deploying airplanes, if everyone did not pull their load, others had to take up the slack.

Here is an interesting Newsweek article- The Tax Man Should Cometh that basically says we should have the IRS fully funded, staffed, and out collecting taxes so that the slackers don't get away with paying nothing and the rest of us have to pull the load. And interesting enough the Republican Party gets pulled into this article.

As long as we're going to have a tax system, we may as well make sure we're all paying our share. But the GOP has conducted a long campaign to defang the IRS's ability to do that. In the late '90s, the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee held a series of dramatic hearings in which individuals sat behind screens and haltingly, tearfully, told stories of IRS persecution. Some of the stories featured genuine misdeeds. Others fell apart upon later examination (Robert McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, remembers one in particular where it turned out the witness was living off his employee's payroll taxes).

There's a good argument to be had over whether taxes should be higher or lower. But everyone agrees they should be fair. When they're not, it raises taxes for those willing to pay them and increases the sense that the system is rigged. We can do better, but first we'll need some agents.

Thoughts?

 

[Alien Allen]

spoken like a true liberal

expand, expand, expand

How come they have no problem writing me when I screw up?

Maybe everybody should work for the govt. Then you would be happy. Except you would have no excuses left to explain the miserable lot the govt has put us in.

 

[Minor Axis]

spoken like a true liberal

expand, expand, expand

How come they have no problem writing me when I screw up?

Maybe everybody should work for the govt. Then you would be happy. Except you would have no excuses left to explain the miserable lot the govt has put us in.

I don't think you missed the point you are just ignoring it. You must admit if we live in a system that relies on tax revenues, those who skate and enjoy the benefits, leave the burden to the honest ones who pay.

 

[Accountable]

"Dramatic senate hearings" is an oxymoron.

I don't think you missed the point you are just ignoring it. You must admit if we live in a system that relies on tax revenues, those who skate and enjoy the benefits, leave the burden to the honest ones who pay.

Wow, Minor. So you're for adjusting the tax burden so that everybody has to pay something, even the ones who now pay nothing yet live off the benefits?? That's surprising.

I think that pruning the federal gov't down to reasonable levels, then cutting taxes down to the point that can pay for it, should result in low enough taxes that most people won't complain about paying. As it is, with the bloated gov't spending every dime they can get their mitts on then demanding more, it's understandable that people would try to find ways around the system & keep some of the money they've earned.

To tie it into your analogy, Minor, 70% of the pilots are being kept on standby when anybody with eyes can see that only one or two are really needed.

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't think you missed the point you are just ignoring it. You must admit if we live in a system that relies on tax revenues, those who skate and enjoy the benefits, leave the burden to the honest ones who pay.

And those who pay not one damn dime also account for a lot of lost revenue.

I am all for finding cheaters. I also think EVERYBODY should at least pay SOMETHING.

One think you will never understand is that when you make taxation at oppressive levels and make the damn system so complicated you drive many wage earners into the underground.

The overhead of having an employee is absurd. If we taxed spending instead of earnings it would be fairer. Everybody would have to contribute and there would be less burden on companies. The rich would still pay more taxes because they would have the money to buy more things and to go on vacations as an example. How taxes affect business was very clearly seen a few years ago when there was a luxury tax on boats over a certain size. Boat sales plummeted until the tax was repealed. Instead of penalizing the rich it penalized the people that make and sell boats.

 

[Codrus]

i personally think govt is already too large, i don't mind paying for schools (as long as they actually teach), police and firefighters etc. but i dont like the thought of paying for those who dont pay their fair share and expect handouts at every turn...or those who aren't really here and send their money elsewhere

 

[Alien Allen]

Property valves have gone down the tank and will take over 10 years to recover

Private sector employees have lost jobs, benefits or wages

Yet the fucking govt just grows like a damn tumor

One state had their governor mandate that spending for the next budget be at 2006 levels and that balanced their budget

Does anybody but a mind numb Obama supporter.... IE: Liberal idiot (no names but you know who you are )

Think this country would fall apart if spending was at the levels of 4 years ago?

 

[Accountable]

Property valves have gone down the tank and will take over 10 years to recover

Private sector employees have lost jobs, benefits or wages

Yet the fucking govt just grows like a damn tumor

One state had their governor mandate that spending for the next budget be at 2006 levels and that balanced their budget

Does anybody but a mind numb Obama supporter.... IE: Liberal idiot (no names but you know who you are )

Think this country would fall apart if spending was at the levels of 4 years ago?

I do; it will just happen at a slower pace.
Cut it to, say, 100 years ago. Adjust for inflation if you must.

 

[Minor Axis]

"Dramatic senate hearings" is an oxymoron.

Wow, Minor. So you're for adjusting the tax burden so that everybody has to pay something, even the ones who now pay nothing yet live off the benefits?? That's surprising.

Yes, everyone should pay something. When have I said any different?

I think that pruning the federal gov't down to reasonable levels, then cutting taxes down to the point that can pay for it, should result in low enough taxes that most people won't complain about paying. As it is, with the bloated gov't spending every dime they can get their mitts on then demanding more, it's understandable that people would try to find ways around the system & keep some of the money they've earned.

There are always people who try to skate.

To tie it into your analogy, Minor, 70% of the pilots are being kept on standby when anybody with eyes can see that only one or two are really needed.

I don't quite get that, 70%?

 

[Minor Axis]

And those who pay not one damn dime also account for a lot of lost revenue.

I am all for finding cheaters. I also think EVERYBODY should at least pay SOMETHING.

Agreed.

One think you will never understand is that when you make taxation at oppressive levels and make the damn system so complicated you drive many wage earners into the underground.

What is oppressive is a matter of opinion. I wonder if tax rates today are lower than they were in the 60's or 70's? I did a quick search and found nothing.

The overhead of having an employee is absurd. If we taxed spending instead of earnings it would be fairer. Everybody would have to contribute and there would be less burden on companies. The rich would still pay more taxes because they would have the money to buy more things and to go on vacations as an example. How taxes affect business was very clearly seen a few years ago when there was a luxury tax on boats over a certain size. Boat sales plummeted until the tax was repealed. Instead of penalizing the rich it penalized the people that make and sell boats.

What is the employee overhead that you experience? BTW, you are arguing both sides. First you say tax spending, not earnings and then you cite a tax on luxury boats that basically taxes people spending on luxury items. There is always an argument that higher taxes stifle business. The discussion goes back to how much should government do and how should it be paid for? Progressive tax rates that tax a higher rate on higher wage earners is just as legitimate as a flat tax as long as it does not go overboard. That too is subject to opinion (how much constitutes going overboard).

 

[Minor Axis]

Think this country would fall apart if spending was at the levels of 4 years ago?

Believe it or not I don't want out of control spending if it does not accomplish anything, especially if it does not help us recover. Wasn't this spending precipitated by a financial crisis brought on by your team? The initial financial volleys were spent by the Bush Administration on the poor, rich big bankers and speculators. The ball got rolling when Wallstreet crashed and Obama continues to spend money on help the economy stay on track. I'm not enough of an expert to say, stop spending or continue. You guys are convinced Obama's spending is wasted. I'm not so sure if McCain was running a stimulus program you all would be squawking as loud.

 

[Accountable]

Yes, everyone should pay something. When have I said any different?



There are always people who try to skate.



I don't quite get that, 70%?

I just used a number instead of writing "llots"

Fewer people would try to cheat if the tax rates were lower. Hell, even God doesn't ask for more than 10%.

 

[Alien Allen]

If you look back I was against the bank bailout that Bush started. The party in power does not matter to me. This is not just about Obama. Although he has taken the art of pissing away money to unprecedented levels.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think a lot depends on your definition of a slacker. I'm of the opinion that most people who dont work want to work but cant because of reasons beyond their control so I dont see why life should be made even harder than what it already is for them. I dont see many people happy enough to struggle by their whole life on benefits which really arn't that great, anyway.

 

[Minor Axis]

"Slacker" is someone who avoids work. Instead I need a word that describes someone who does not lift their fair share of a burden.

 

[Alien Allen]

"Slacker" is someone who avoids work. Instead I need a word that describes someone who does not lift their fair share of a burden.

Liberal

 

[RedRyder]

"Slacker" is someone who avoids work. Instead I need a word that describes someone who does not lift their fair share of a burden.

Liberal

:24: :24:

Not that I'm taking political sides here. I just found it very amusing.

 

[retro]

"Slacker" is someone who avoids work. Instead I need a word that describes someone who does not lift their fair share of a burden.

Please define "fair share"

 

[Tim]

I do; it will just happen at a slower pace.
Cut it to, say, 100 years ago. Adjust for inflation if you must.

You won't like going back to spending and taxes of 100 years ago... wouldn't like it at all...

In 1918 the top tax rate was 77% and if you made $40,000 your tax rate was 31% and at $70,000 your rate was 46%

When you talk about lowering tax rates to what they were in the past, you are longing for the Reagan years (if you are filthy rich) But you wouldn't want to go back to the tax rates between 1917 and 1986... That's 70 years you don't want to mention

 

[Alien Allen]

You won't like going back to spending and taxes of 100 years ago... wouldn't like it at all...

In 1918 the top tax rate was 77% and if you made $40,000 your tax rate was 31% and at $70,000 your rate was 46%

When you talk about lowering tax rates to what they were in the past, you are longing for the Reagan years (if you are filthy rich) But you wouldn't want to go back to the tax rates between 1917 and 1986... That's 70 years you don't want to mention

Nice spin there Timmy

You realize that only 5% even paid income tax back then?

If I am not mistaken no taxes were paid until you earned more than $4k

You want to guess how many that applied to??

Your example is bullshit

The top typical wage earner was in the financial sector. They made on average 69 cents and hour. You can do the math but that means they made under $1500 in a year

I have not looked at what you liberals call loopholes which would be write offs. But there were tons of them before. Something you liberals conveniently ignore was those most of those write offs were eliminated in exchange for the Regan and DEMOCRAT CONGRESS tax cuts.