What does america have to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century?

[The Mark]

The one that makes it so that my dad has to find work a half an hour away so that we don't have to move. Then again, maybe it's just my area.

It might be. I know that I used to travel about 70 mins to work. Now I travel about 30.

Many people are traveling longer distances to work these days, because they want the job in the big city, but don't want to live there.

This may not be the case with your father, but (at least in my personal experiance) 30 mins is not that bad.

Of course, it's all a matter or perspective.

 

[The Mark]

Those not in the top levels of income have not shared in the economic growth of the last few years; real wages have been stagnant or declining, especially for the less wealthy.

These are 2004$ incomes, the numbers are the upper limit of each fifth. The last figure is the lower limit of the upper 5%.

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/inco...tinc/h01ar.html

The last row is percent change from 2000.

Year--Lowest-second-third--fourth---upper 5%
2004 18,500 34,738 55,325 88,029 157,185
2003 18,467 34,914 55,916 89,202 158,262
2002 18,819 35,059 55,841 88,250 157,562
2001 19,176 35,550 56,557 89,103 160,598
2000 19,656 36,197 57,229 89,688 159,290
Perc. -5.9% -4.0% -3.3% -1.8% -1.3%

These are income figures -- and I'd wager that after tax incomes are up significantly for the wealthier, since they benefitted more the most from the income tax cuts. Those in the bottom rungs received little effective tax cut; the tax they mostly pay is SS, which for some unimaginable reason was not cut like every other tax was.

These are great times -- if you're rich.

Our tax code need revised or replaced.

I liked the flat tax (at least I think that's what it was) idea.

X % of your income is paid as tax. No concessions except for people earning, say, less than 10,000- 15,000 a year. No other taxes. Period.

(This might not exactly be the flat tax idea that I have heard about, but this is my idea of a good tax code.)

While they higher salary people would still have more left over after tax,
I still think that it would be fair....after all, everyone pays the same percentage of his/her/it's income (except the really low earners).

 

[Iriemon]

Our tax code need revised or replaced.

I liked the flat tax (at least I think that's what it was) idea.

X % of your income is paid as tax. No concessions except for people earning, say, less than 10,000- 15,000 a year. No other taxes. Period.

(This might not exactly be the flat tax idea that I have heard about, but this is my idea of a good tax code.)

While they higher salary people would still have more left over after tax,
I still think that it would be fair....after all, everyone pays the same percentage of his/her/it's income (except the really low earners).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Personally, I think it is fair that the wealthier pay a higher tax rate. They can afford it more easily. A 40% tax to a guy making $1 million a year may have to buy a smaller yacht, but he isn't going to be worrying about whether his kids will eat. To a single mom raising two kids and making $18,000 a year, a 25% tax ($4500) leaves her 13,500; it's a crushing burden.

And frankly, I'm just thrilled that she's out working as opposed to living off welfare, she is the person I want to incentivize most to work.

But I agree our tax code needs revision and simplification; it is an outrage that guys like Cheney and Kerry pay 13% tax thanks to loopholes -- a lower rate than most working folks pay.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Those not in the top levels of income have not shared in the economic growth of the last few years; real wages have been stagnant or declining, especially for the less wealthy.

These are 2004$ incomes, the numbers are the upper limit of each fifth. The last figure is the lower limit of the upper 5%.

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/inco...tinc/h01ar.html

The last row is percent change from 2000.

Year--Lowest-second-third--fourth---upper 5%
2004 18,500 34,738 55,325 88,029 157,185
2003 18,467 34,914 55,916 89,202 158,262
2002 18,819 35,059 55,841 88,250 157,562
2001 19,176 35,550 56,557 89,103 160,598
2000 19,656 36,197 57,229 89,688 159,290
Perc. -5.9% -4.0% -3.3% -1.8% -1.3%

These are income figures -- and I'd wager that after tax incomes are up significantly for the wealthier, since they benefitted more the most from the income tax cuts. Those in the bottom rungs received little effective tax cut; the tax they mostly pay is SS, which for some unimaginable reason was not cut like every other tax was.

These are great times -- if you're rich.

So? I'm in the top quintile. Again, what's crappy about the economy? Seems just fine to me.

How about if the god damned Republicans cut taxes - they're WAAY too high, and cut spending on all those useless whiny people begging for something they haven't earned. Has the concept of earning been dismissed as being too complicated for the dumber people on the bottom tiers?

 

[jfuh]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Personally, I think it is fair that the wealthier pay a higher tax rate. They can afford it more easily.

Not only that because they can afford it alone, but thier wealth is built on that of those who aren't as wealthy. Example. A CEO of a company can not do crap without h/er employees. An investor in say, GM can not make a dime without the guys on the floor hauling ***. So they should most obviously give more back to society after making money off of society.

A 40% tax to a guy making $1 million a year may have to buy a smaller yacht, but he isn't going to be worrying about whether his kids will eat. To a single mom raising two kids and making $18,000 a year, a 25% tax ($4500) leaves her 13,500; it's a crushing burden.

And frankly, I'm just thrilled that she's out working as opposed to living off welfare, she is the person I want to incentivize most to work.

But I agree our tax code needs revision and simplification; it is an outrage that guys like Cheney and Kerry pay 13% tax thanks to loopholes -- a lower rate than most working folks pay.

Much much lower. They can afford to higher the accountants to help them use these loopholes. It's just wrong, especially with the current Tax cuts, look on any site of how much richer the wealthy have gotten in the last 5 years. How the middle class has shrunk and those in poverty have grown.
Close the loopeholes, and collect on all the coorperate taxes that are owed!

 

[Goobieman]

The one that makes it so that my dad has to find work a half an hour away so that we don't have to move. Then again, maybe it's just my area.

A WHOLE half-hour?
We must be headed for a depression...

 

[Iriemon]

So? I'm in the top quintile. Again, what's crappy about the economy? Seems just fine to me.

Exactly what I said. These are great times, if you're rich.

Most folks don't measure how the economy is performing by just looking at how Scarecrow Akhbar is doing. The fact you personally are doing well is irrelevant, except in your own little world, which clearly seems all you are concerned about.

How about if the god damned Republicans cut taxes - they're WAAY too high, and cut spending on all those useless whiny people begging for something they haven't earned. Has the concept of earning been dismissed as being too complicated for the dumber people on the bottom tiers?

The Govt could completely eliminate welfare (medicaid and economic assistance) and the government would still have to borrow money. These programs expended $387 billion in 2005 (CBO.gov), representing about 15% of total expenditures.

The big spending expenses are defense, SS, medicare, and interest. You have to cut those programs if you want to balance the budget without raising taxes, or want to cut taxes further.

 

[Goobieman]

The Govt could completely eliminate welfare (medicaid and economic assistance) and the government would still have to borrow money. These programs expended $387 billion in 2005 (CBO.gov), representing about 15% of total expenditures.

The big spending expenses are defense, SS, medicare, and interest. You have to cut those programs if you want to balance the budget without raising taxes, or want to cut taxes further.

SS and Medicare are welfare. ALL entitlement programs are welfare.
Entitlement programs take up ~60% of federal expenditures and over half the growth in those expenditures.
If you want to balance the budget, you have to cut entitlements.

 

[jfuh]

SS and Medicare are welfare. ALL entitlement programs are welfare.
Entitlement programs take up ~60% of federal expenditures and over half the growth in those expenditures.
If you want to balance the budget, you have to cut entitlements.

Not entirely true: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
The largest expenditure is the interest on the national defecit. Especially now that's it's nearly $10trillion!

 

[Iriemon]

Not only that because they can afford it alone, but thier wealth is built on that of those who aren't as wealthy. Example. A CEO of a company can not do crap without h/er employees. An investor in say, GM can not make a dime without the guys on the floor hauling ***. So they should most obviously give more back to society after making money off of society.

Much much lower. They can afford to higher the accountants to help them use these loopholes. It's just wrong, especially with the current Tax cuts, look on any site of how much richer the wealthy have gotten in the last 5 years. How the middle class has shrunk and those in poverty have grown.
Close the loopeholes, and collect on all the coorperate taxes that are owed!

I agree that loopholes and preferences that allow guys like Cheney and Kerry to pay such low taxes should be eliminated. Thanks to these loopholes, we currently have a regressive system where the very rich pay less tax rate than many middle/upper midder workers.

IMO, corporate taxes should be eliminated. A corporation is not a person (it is legally, but not in the sense I mean), it generates a revenues. It distributes the revenues to pay expenses, and to employee salaries and shareholders. If it is taxed, it simply passes whatever portion of the tax it can get away with to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods or services -- a hidden sales tax in effect.

The people who benefit from the corporation -- the employees, management, and shareholders, are what should be taxed.

Look at it in the extreme. If you have all your taxes generated through corporate taxes, and none through personal taxes, you have companies like Wal-Mart which would increase its prices to pay for the tax. The people who shop at Wal-Mart pay higher prices for goods; essentially they pay the tax. But the major shareholders of Wal-Mart earn tens or hundreds of millions thru stock and compensation, but would pay no tax.

Does that make sense? It would if you are a major owner of Wal-mart, I suppose.

In a sense, this is what is happening under this administration. Income taxes have been slashed, and revenues from income taxes have fallen sharply, but corporate tax revenues have risen. More taxes are being paid by consumers so that the rich guys who run/own the corp pay less tax.

Income tax revenue:

2000 1,004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2

Corporate tax revenue:

2000 207.3
2001 151.1
2002 148.0
2003 131.8
2004 189.4
2005 278.3

Source: cbo.gov

Although, of course, these is just a side phenonema; the big picture is that overall govt revenues have lagged far behind economic growth, overall are still lower than they were in 2000 in real terms, and is the major reason why the Govt has had to borrow $2.5 trillion from our future over the last 4-5 years.

 

[Iriemon]

SS and Medicare are welfare. ALL entitlement programs are welfare.
Entitlement programs take up ~60% of federal expenditures and over half the growth in those expenditures.

Isn't that what I just said?

If you want to balance the budget, you have to cut entitlements.

Not the only option. The Govt could raise taxes. Putting tax rates back at the levels they were in 1999 would probably generate enough revenue to balance the budget; or come pretty close.

 

[Iriemon]

Not entirely true: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
The largest expenditure is the interest on the national defecit. Especially now that's it's nearly $10trillion!

Not true; Defense, SS, and Medicare program spending are more than the interest expense. But you are correct, the interest cost on the Republican debt is now a major spending item ($350 billion in 2005, of which $150 is owed to the SS trust and about $200 paid to prive debt holders like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia) and growing rapidly, and is becoming a greater and greater drag on Govt resources.

$200 billion every year is a hell of a lot of money to being paying for interest. Think of what the Govt could do with that.

That great sucking sound of our tax dollars being used for interest payments brought to you courtesy of the Reagan, Bush and Bush deficits. Thanks guys.

 

[Goobieman]

Not entirely true: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
The largest expenditure is the interest on the national defecit. Especially now that's it's nearly $10trillion!

False.
FY2005, net interest on the debt cost $184B. Thats 7.4% of federal spending fot that year.

 

[Goobieman]

Isn't that what I just said?

No.
Further, eliminating entitlements would create a HUGE surplus; your assertion that we'd still need to borrow money if we eliminated them is false.

Not the only option. The Govt could raise taxes. Putting tax rates back at the levels they were in 1999 would probably generate enough revenue to balance the budget; or come pretty close.

"Probably".
You'll have to do better than that.

But, its typical of the liberal - any problem can be soplved by higher taxes.

What happens when the tax rate is 100%?

 

[jfuh]

False.
FY2005, net interest on the debt cost $184B. Thats 7.4% of federal spending fot that year.

That's only the interest that is 7.4% of GDP. Interest alone was $184Billion! Money that could've been put to much better use then payments to foriegn countries.
Just where did this mentality of spending more than you make come into play? That's how companies, businesses and private citizens go bankrupt.

 

[Goobieman]

I agree that loopholes and preferences that allow guys like Cheney and Kerry to pay such low taxes should be eliminated. Thanks to these loopholes, we currently have a regressive system where the very rich pay less tax rate than many middle/upper midder workers.

Prove it.
I paid an effective 4.2% last year on almost $100k.
Show me that Kerry or Cheney paid a lower rate.
This should be easy for you to do, considering that their 1040s are public record.

 

[Goobieman]

Prove it.
I paid an effective 4.2% last year on almost $100k.
Show me that Kerry or Cheney paid a lower rate.
This should be easy for you to do, considering that their 1040s are public record.

Here - I will help:

In 2004 Bush had taxable income Line 35 of $784, 219 and paid 26.4% in Federal Income tax.

In 2004, [Cheney] had taxable income of $1,734,373 and paid 21.3% in Federal Income taxes.

http://colgene.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1&AID=72341

 

[The Mark]

Not true; Defense, SS, and Medicare program spending are more than the interest expense. But you are correct, the interest cost on the Republican debt is now a major spending item ($350 billion in 2005, of which $150 is owed to the SS trust and about $200 paid to private debt holders like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia) and growing rapidly, and is becoming a greater and greater drag on Govt resources.

$200 billion every year is a hell of a lot of money to being paying for interest. Think of what the Govt could do with that.

That great sucking sound of our tax dollars being used for interest payments brought to you courtesy of the Reagan, Bush and Bush deficits. Thanks guys.

Don't blame it on just a few because they are the ones you dislike the most.

I would blame politicians all the way back to the first guy who decided that we should pay off the interest without paying off the loan.

Not just on the recent ones.

 

[laska]

Iriemon, what kind of estimated revenues and deficits would the following tax code create compared to the current system: 0% on income less than $12,000, 10% on income between $12,000-$100,000, and 30% on income over $100,000(no deductions).

 

[Iriemon]

No.
Further, eliminating entitlements would create a HUGE surplus; your assertion that we'd still need to borrow money if we eliminated them is false.

You'd have a point -- if I had said eliminating entitlements.

"Probably".
You'll have to do better than that.

Unlike many others, I try to avoid making absolute statements of fact that depend upon a degree of speculation.

But here's a quick and dirty calculation:

In 2000, tax revenues were 20.63% of GDP.
In 2005, GDP was $12,378 billion. If you apply the 20.63% rate to $12,378 billion, you'd have revenues of $2,553 billion, more than sufficient to cover expenditures in 2005 of 2,472 billion.

But, its typical of the liberal - any problem can be soplved by higher taxes.

Typical of a liberal is that it is immoral to pass the buck of the cost of our Govt to the next generation, and that the Govt should stand up, do the responsible thing, and tax what is necessary to cover what we spend.

Another well known liberal (according to Scarecrow Akhbar) said this: "Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren"

I agree. 100%.

What happens when the tax rate is 100%?

Who proposes we do that? That would be inane.

 

[Iriemon]

Prove it.
I paid an effective 4.2% last year on almost $100k.
Show me that Kerry or Cheney paid a lower rate.
This should be easy for you to do, considering that their 1040s are public record.

Prove first that your situation represents that "many paid more" as I asserted; and I will back up my statement.

My figures were based on 2003 data:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushchen.pdf

http://www.mentalblog.com/2004/10/kerry-tax-rate-128.html

If you only paid 4% income tax on 100,000; that is a perfect example of how our tax system needs revision because the wealthier can use loopholes to lower their tax rate.

 

[Iriemon]

Don't blame it on just a few because they are the ones you dislike the most.

I would blame politicians all the way back to the first guy who decided that we should pay off the interest without paying off the loan.

Not just on the recent ones.

Fair point, tho' the total debt has increased more than 8 fold (from 1 trillion to more than 8 trillion) since 1981; the vast bulk of that increase came during the Reagan Bush and Bush years; and all of that increase can be attributed to their irresponsible deficits.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon, what kind of estimated revenues and deficits would the following tax code create compared to the current system: 0% on income less than $12,000, 10% on income between $12,000-$100,000, and 30% on income over $100,000(no deductions).

I don't know, and don't have the time to do the specific calculations. But if these were actual effective rates; and not nominal rates before deductions for stuff like home mortgages, or preferences for cap gains/dividends; I think you'd be pretty close.

Gross national income is around $10-11 trillion, the Govt spends $2.4 trillion, so your average effective tax rate needs to be around 25%.

 

[Goobieman]

If you only paid 4% income tax on 100,000; that is a perfect example of how our tax system needs revision because the wealthier can use loopholes to lower their tax rate.

Ah. The bolshivek in you peeks out.
I'm not wealthy. I'm very middle class. I'm just the guy that you say the rich pay a lower rate than. My "loopholes" consist of child tax credits, interest and property tax deductions, work expenses and charitible contributions -- the exact same 'loopholes' that are available to everyone.

Can you or can you not find an example of a "rich" person paying a lower effective rate than me?

 

[Iriemon]

Ah. The bolshivek in you peeks out.
I'm not wealthy. I'm very middle class. I'm just the guy that you say the rich pay a lower rate than. My "loopholes" consist of child tax credits, interest and property tax deductions, work expenses and charitible contributions -- the exact same 'loopholes' that are available to everyone.

Can you or can you not find an example of a "rich" person paying a lower effective rate than me?

If you make $100,000, that makes you wealthier than 80% of American families.

I did not say that every middle/upper middle class families paid more that 13%, I said many. Nor I did not say that you paid more that 13%. Although if you add in the SS taxes you paid, my guess is you'd get closer to 13% if not above.

My guess is there are "rich" families that pay no income taxes, but I'm not going to waste the time to search, it's not that important to me.