Do tax cuts help to reduce the debt?

[bongsaway]

Senate Republicans say they won’t support tax bill that doesn’t make Trump cuts permanent​

And here we go again. Trump is offering free money to the wealthy in bundles, you, you will get a pittance of a tax cut. Does cutting taxes for the wealthy help the average American?

Before budget cuts, which the House resolution puts at a goal of $2 trillion, the total cost of the Republican agenda could reach as high as $7 trillion, according to an estimate by Andrew Lautz of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Kiss the ring or die republicans.

 

[Peacenik]

Senate Republicans say they won’t support tax bill that doesn’t make Trump cuts permanent​

And here we go again. Trump is offering free money to the wealthy in bundles, you, you will get a pittance of a tax cut. Does cutting taxes for the wealthy help the average American?

Before budget cuts, which the House resolution puts at a goal of $2 trillion, the total cost of the Republican agenda could reach as high as $7 trillion, according to an estimate by Andrew Lautz of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Kiss the ring or die republicans.

It's not the ring being kissed.

 

[Peacenik]

Well, it's becoming increasingly apparent what Franklin meant when he said: "If you can keep it."

 

[Airyaman]

Some people will claim that tax cuts actually increase revenue but they always fail when you ask for reliable evidence.

 

[NatMorton]

Tax cuts aren't supposed to reduce the debt.

 

[Individual]

I've been trying to begin a discussion on changing the Federal Individual Income Tax Code as shown below:
1. Eliminate the FICA tax, adjust wages to account for the employer contribution.
2. Eliminate all forms of deductions, and simply tax the total gross income regardless of source.
3. Require each individual with a gross income greater than 1/4 the minimum wage to file a return.
4. Set the tax tables each year based on an algorithm, using increments of the GNI per capita applied to the progressive tax rates of 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 37%.

The current top tax rate is 37%, and I'd be willing to reduce the top rate in my proposal to 35%.

 

[NatMorton]

I've been trying to begin a discussion on changing the Federal Individual Income Tax Code as shown below:
1. Eliminate the FICA tax, adjust wages to account for the employer contribution.
2. Eliminate all forms of deductions, and simply tax the total gross income regardless of source.
3. Require each individual with a gross income greater than 1/4 the minimum wage to file a return.
4. Set the tax tables each year based on an algorithm, using increments of the GNI per capita applied to the progressive tax rates of 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 37%.

The current top tax rate is 37%, and I'd be willing to reduce the top rate in my proposal to 35%.

I like the simplification, but I'd go with one rate applied to all income -- from any source -- earned above some percentage of the poverty level (e.g., 110%).

The simpler the tax code the fewer the favors those in Washington have to sell.

 

[Individual]

I like the simplification, but I'd go with one rate applied to all income -- from any source -- earned above some percentage of the poverty level (e.g., 110%).

The simpler the tax code the fewer the favors those in Washington have to sell.

Had we not allowed the income and wealth inequality to grow so disproportionately large, a single tax rate might have been acceptable for a while, but I think we're far past that point. But I'd be interested in your argument against a progressive tax rate.

What I've suggested would eliminate politicians from using the tax code for their benefit as the tax tables would change solely based on the GNI per capita each year.

 

[NatMorton]

Had we not allowed the income and wealth inequality to grow so disproportionately large, a single tax rate might have been acceptable for a while, but I think we're far past that point. But I'd be interested in your argument against a progressive tax rate.

What I've suggested would eliminate politicians from using the tax code for their benefit as the tax tables would change solely based on the GNI per capita each year.

I see two principal arguments against a progressive tax rate. The first is fairness. I don't see the rationale for one person paying more pennies on the dollar than another, and I don't see the rationale for some forms of income being taxed less than others. Second, a progressive tax scheme allows those in government to implement a divide and conquer strategy. As the old saying goals, don't tax me and don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree. Where and when we must raise taxes, it should affect everyone paying taxes, not just a minority of taxpayers.

 

[Greenbeard]

I see two principal arguments against a progressive tax rate. The first is fairness. I don't see the rationale for one person paying more pennies on the dollar than another, and I don't see the rationale for some forms of income being taxed less than others. Second, a progressive tax scheme allows those in government to implement a divide and conquer strategy. As the old saying goals, don't tax me and don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree. Where and when we must raise taxes, it should affect everyone paying taxes, not just a minority of taxpayers.

Everyone pays the same tax rate on the same marginal dollar of income under a progressive tax.

 

[NatMorton]

Everyone pays the same tax rate on the same marginal dollar of income under a progressive tax.

That does not address the concerns I've stated about progressive rates.

 

[Airyaman]

I like the simplification, but I'd go with one rate applied to all income -- from any source -- earned above some percentage of the poverty level (e.g., 110%).

The simpler the tax code the fewer the favors those in Washington have to sell.

And that is why it will never happen.

 

[markdc]

My personal view is that if you want to get your fiscal house in order, you have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Since Republicans never want to raise taxes and Democrat never want to cut spending, America is fiscally fukked.

Mark

 

[Loulit01]

Tax cuts increase the debt. People used to mock tax and spend democrats. At least the taxes were paying for the spending. MAGA cuts taxes with no way to pay for the shortfall.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Tax cuts lowering the debt or deficit:

 

[Dans La Lune]

My personal view is that if you want to get your fiscal house in order, you have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Since Republicans never want to raise taxes and Democrat never want to cut spending, America is fiscally fukked.

Mark

What would be the point of cutting spending (services that government needs)?

 

[Dans La Lune]

I see two principal arguments against a progressive tax rate. The first is fairness. I don't see the rationale for one person paying more pennies on the dollar than another, and I don't see the rationale for some forms of income being taxed less than others.

The rich use enormous government resources, and the cost to society is infinitely greater, than Joe Shlub paying taxes on his wages. How can you not fundamentally understand this?

Second, a progressive tax scheme allows those in government to implement a divide and conquer strategy.

Yes, and it should be a divide and conquer strategy. And a zero sum game. Billionaires existing is a huge drain on society.

As the old saying goals, don't tax me and don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree. Where and when we must raise taxes, it should affect everyone paying taxes, not just a minority of taxpayers.

Billionaires claiming that government is persecuting them for their wealth, when that wealth literally wouldn't exist without government, is pretty rich.

 

[Individual]

I see two principal arguments against a progressive tax rate. The first is fairness. I don't see the rationale for one person paying more pennies on the dollar than another, and I don't see the rationale for some forms of income being taxed less than others. Second, a progressive tax scheme allows those in government to implement a divide and conquer strategy. As the old saying goals, don't tax me and don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree. Where and when we must raise taxes, it should affect everyone paying taxes, not just a minority of taxpayers.

Could you show some figures with a single tax rate that would produce the needed revenue to run our government?
Per the Washington Post, the average medical doctor in the U.S. makes $350,000 per year. That would be about $168 per hour. A minimum wage earner would have to work 23 hours, nearly 3 full days to pay for 1 hours time of a Doctor, probably more to cover other costs involved. The min wage earner with a $15,116 annual income would have a tax bill of $2,267 or 15%, the Doctor with a $350,000 annual income would have a tax bill of $83,100 or 23.7%. Pretax the Doctor would be making 23 times what the min wage earner makes, and after taxes he would only be making about 21 times as much using my progressive tax rates. With the current tax code and deductions the Doctor may not even be paying as much in income tax as the min wage earner.
I think everyone who has income of 1/4 the minimum wage or more should be required to file a tax return any pay taxes. Ideally the tax code should produce enough to cover most, if not all the governments budgeted spending. Deficits, IMO, should rarely occur and could be either eliminated or reduced by application of a surtax applied across the board where every taxpayer would see their taxes increased.

 

[NatMorton]

The rich use enormous government resources, and the cost to society is infinitely greater, than Joe Shlub paying taxes on his wages. How can you not fundamentally understand this?

No, I don't think so. It's more accurate to say the rich provide the vast majority of financial resources to the government and the poor consume the vast majority of them.

Yes, and it should be a divide an conquer strategy. And a zero sum game. Billionaires existing is a huge drain on society.

There we disagree.

Billionaires claiming that government is persecuting them for their wealth, when that wealth literally wouldn't exist without government, is pretty rich.

I like stories.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Econ 101, reducing tax income while not changing outlays has never reduced the deficit. It takes other things, that Republicans always forget about.

 

[Individual]

Only repayment of some of the debt principal reduces the debt.

 

[NatMorton]

Could you show some figures with a single tax rate that would produce the needed revenue to run our government?

That opens a debate on what the "needed revenue" actually is, but to answer your question it's simple math:

Needed revenue = sum of all taxable income * X.

Solve for X and you have the flat rate you need.

Per the Washington Post, the average medical doctor in the U.S. makes $350,000 per year. That would be about $168 per hour. A minimum wage earner would have to work 23 hours, nearly 3 full days to pay for 1 hours time of a Doctor, probably more to cover other costs involved. The min wage earner with a $15,116 annual income would have a tax bill of $2,267 or 15%, the Doctor with a $350,000 annual income would have a tax bill of $83,100 or 23.7%. Pretax the Doctor would be making 23 times what the min wage earner makes, and after taxes he would only be making about 21 times as much using my progressive tax rates. With the current tax code and deductions the Doctor may not even be paying as much in income tax as the min wage earner.
I think everyone who has income of 1/4 the minimum wage or more should be required to file a tax return any pay taxes. Ideally the tax code should produce enough to cover most, if not all the governments budgeted spending. Deficits, IMO, should rarely occur and could be either eliminated or reduced by application of a surtax applied across the board where every taxpayer would see their taxes increased.

I understand the argument behind a progressive rate. I simply don't agree with it. I don't think it's fair to confiscate a higher percentage of someone's income simply because they have more income.

 

[Jack2aTee]

Attempting to reduce the debt is like asking an 800 lb person to eat only 8 eggs for breakfast rather than a dozen. It only reduces their 10,000 caloric per day intake by about 600 calories. A person's never going to get lower than 790 lbs on that kind kind of strategy.

That's the predicament we find ourselves in. Anyone overweight person who's dieted knows that it's a struggle just to maintain your current weight. To actually lose weight consistently involves PAIN, a tremendous amount of pain--going hungry all day for months up to maybe a year or longer, and who's willing to put themselves through that?

This country couldn't survive the kind of deprivation needed to bring the national debt down by even 10 TRILLION dollars and the politicians all know this. That's why they aren't trying to bring down the debt really. They're just trying to make it appear they are in order to survive long enough in office until they can get their pensions. Then they'll leave it to the next crop of hapless idiots.

 

[Jack2aTee]

My personal view is that if you want to get your fiscal house in order, you have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Since Republicans never want to raise taxes and Democrat never want to cut spending, America is fiscally fukked.

Mark

Our greatest period of prosperity was the 50's when the highest tax rate was 90%. We were flush with cash. Then that goddamned asshole Ronald Reagan got in selling us on voodoo economics that the rich would send most of their tax savings down to us poor peons. How well did that work out?

 

[Individual]

That opens a debate on what the "needed revenue" actually is, but to answer your question it's simple math:

Needed revenue = sum of all taxable income * X.

Solve for X and you have the flat rate you need.

I would call needed revenue the sum total of all spending each Fiscal year.
The tax rate would be the above figure divided by all taxable income.

I understand the argument behind a progressive rate. I simply don't agree with it. I don't think it's fair to confiscate a higher percentage of someone's income simply because they have more income.

About 50 years ago I might have agreed with you. So someone making $350,000,000 per year should pay the same tax rate as someone making $50,000 per year would in your opinion be fair, and not result in raising the taxes on the lower income earners?