you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Will ANY tax be viewed as fair by everyone? Aren't you actually saying that, since someone will always be shortchanged, taxes should never be reduced(??). I would suggest some, such as heterosexual married couples and stockholders, are already badly shortchanged.
ANY reduction in federal income taxes will reduce taxes to those who pay; therefore, the "wealthy" will always benefit (since the "poor" do not pay). So it does not appear to matter if one considers "the wealthy" those who yearly earn $50K, $200K, or $10M.
Why is there so little discussion about pork barrel, vote-buying, cost reductions to offset any impacts of tax cuts(?). I.e., why is it presumed the economy will proceed precisely as at present with or without those cuts? Can we honestly believe we can withdraw infinite $s from the economy with impunity? Why are political spenders (e.g., who grandstand about "education reductions" because education spending does not increase by their preferred amount) rewarded while those inclined toward reason and efficiency are not(?).
Why is there so little discussion about the positive impacts of tax reductions (e.g., more freedom through greater control of our resources, an improved economy, more incentive to save and invest, ...?).
Why are dividend taxes emphasized with the proposed tax package, while the average taxpaying family will see its taxes decline over $1K/year(?).
Why is it not pointed out those who receive dividends (defined as "the rich", even though one third are retired and relying on dividends and social security to cover living expenses) already pay twice the posted income tax rate(?). When income is taxed at the corporate level, which we as taxpayers theoretically own, and a second time at the personal level, the corporation and shareholder does not need to be in a particularly high bracket to see half the income disappear into federal income taxes alone.
Why, when we are advised social security is not intended to be a sole support in retirement, are people unduly taxed on income needed to complement social security and reduce reliance on welfare, medicare, and medicaid(?). Is the lesser use of these government services, and attendant lowered costs, factored into the benefits of reducing dividend taxes(?).
Also see my posts #31737 and 31718.
You are welcome.
Sorry, I missed all the debates. It's a little late now, but I'll add some points.
I agree with many of DiB's points. However, that's no fun. Here's what I disagree with:
It is true that for many families where both spouses work, there is a "marriage penalty" when their combined incomes are in a higher tax bracket than their individual incomes. However, for many families, there is actually a significant "marriage benefit". This is most profound where only one parent works (for example, my family). If my parents were to divorce, we would pay significantly higher taxes. Why should we only fix the marriage penalty, but not the marriage benefit?
As far as people grandstanding because "education spending does not increase by their preferred amount", I would like to refute that. In Virginia, that is certainly not true.
This is the second year I have been attending the University of Virginia. Due to the state budget crisis, tuitions have been raised by nearly $1,000 in the past year, which is almost a 10% rise in my case. However, services have been drastically cut. Here is only a small list of cutbacks at UVA: a complete hiring freeze of professors in the College; the internet speed has been drastically reduced; printing has gone from unlimited free pages to a quota system and finally now 10 cents per page; reduced library hours and book spending; elimination of math graders, so homework is no longer collected; the Schools of Law and Business going private; and worst of all, a drastic reduction in the number and variety of classes taught.
In my introductory accounting class, a requirement of the commerce school, 70 people showed up on the first day in a class that seats 40. In the economics department, the upper level classes are 50 students (intro classes are over 500 students). Yet the demand for most of those upper-level classes is far greater than 50 students; people are not happy when they spend tends of thousands of dollars and cannot even take the courses they want.
I could go on for pages more about the budget cuts, but I won't bore you. My point is that your over-generalized comment causes legitimate lack of funding for education to be ignored.
Their is much in post that I too agree with. Many of the questions are food for discussion and if you would like to start a dialogue on some of them, I'l be Happy to engage you.
Having said that, I am amazed how such a simplistic statement as:
<<Any reduction in federal income taxes will reduce taxes to those who pay; therefore, the "wealthy" will always benefit (since the "poor" do not pay). So it does not appear to matter if one considers "the wealthy" those who yearly earn $50K, $200K, or $10M.>>
So untrue. And so unfortunate. If you can not distinguish between those earning $50K from those earning $200K and those earning $10 million, you should hang your head and walk away from any discussion of tax equity.
The enormous difference in discretionary income among these three examples is so obvious that even tanker should have called you on the carpet. The impact upon their discretionary spending resulting from a tax reduction is similarly substantial.
So you didn't like what Gov. Ryan did and are ashamed that he is Republican. Ah Republicans. They do so think that they occupy the moral high ground. LOL