YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Tax cuts for corporations do... Folks with a less amounts of money have to spend it right away to make ends meet, it immediately goes back to those big corporations increasing dema.nd for the goods they produce and you get the bump in the economy like we had with the stimulus checks in the spring. Please, that comment and McCain's recent one's doesn't even pass the Republican smell test From a political standpoint, tax credits (breaks) for individuals who don't pay income tax because they don't earn enough, but do pay lots of payroll taxes, sales taxes,and property tax Republicans along with McCain say don't deserve a tax break? That is a pretty incredible and stupid political statement. Now if I am lower middle class like discredited Joe Plumber and I see this, I really wonder about the McCain plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Tax cuts for corporations do... Folks with a less amounts of money have to spend it right away to make ends meet, it immediately goes back to those big corporations increasing dema.nd for the goods they produce and you get the bump in the economy like we had with the stimulus checks in the spring. Please, that comment and McCain's recent one's doesn't even pass the Republican smell test From a political standpoint, tax credits (breaks) for individuals who don't pay income tax because they don't earn enough, but do pay lots of payroll taxes, sales taxes,and property tax Republicans along with McCain say don't deserve a tax break? That is a pretty incredible and stupid political statement. Now if I am lower middle class like discredited Joe Plumber and I see this, I really wonder about the McCain plan. The only problem with that is, people like Joe the Plumber really do think that most tax money is spent on welfare. That's as deep as they go. That's why they support tax cuts and the Iraq War and don't connect the two in any way or on any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 From a political standpoint, tax credits (breaks) for individuals who don't pay income tax because they don't earn enough, but do pay lots of payroll taxes, sales taxes,and property tax Republicans along with McCain say don't deserve a tax break? That is a pretty incredible and stupid political statement. Now if I am lower middle class like discredited Joe Plumber and I see this, I really wonder about the McCain plan. so the federal government's job should be to send checks to people who pay a lot of state and local taxes? Sending a check to someone who doesn't pay taxes isn't a tax cut - it is a gift. I don't want my government to be in the gift business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 so the federal government's job should be to send checks to people who pay a lot of state and local taxes? Sending a check to someone who doesn't pay taxes isn't a tax cut - it is a gift. I don't want my government to be in the gift business. If you read my post clearly, you would not that these folks do pay payroll taxes and that could be where the break comes from. And as for the rest, folks that make enough to itemize can already write off their state taxes, including real estate, sales taxes on their property purchase, and mortgage interest on their fed, so what is the big deal. Should we close that loophole too? According to your logic, they are getting a gift. See if that goes over well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 If you read my post clearly, you would not that these folks do pay payroll taxes and that could be where the break comes from. And as for the rest, folks that make enough to itemize can already write off their state taxes, including real estate, sales taxes on their property purchase, and mortgage interest on their fed, so what is the big deal. Should we close that loophole too? According to your logic, they are getting a gift. See if that goes over well Itemizing state taxes etc is not that big a windfall - it's an income adjustement, not a tax credit. So if you are in the highest tax catagory, the net would be that you get less than a third of it back. Even so, you don't actually get that after you factor in the AMT, which has the effect of limiting most deductions. I won't answer for the poster, but yeah - they should be closed. The tax code should be simplified. It should be a 30 second calculation based on your total income and a progressive tax chart, with no deductions or credits for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Giving money to some one is ok , its just that I do not want the govt telling me who I have to give it to. Lets face it the more money of yours the politicians (all) have leads to corruptiion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 Itemizing state taxes etc is not that big a windfall - it's an income adjustement, not a tax credit. So if you are in the highest tax catagory, the net would be that you get less than a third of it back. Even so, you don't actually get that after you factor in the AMT, which has the effect of limiting most deductions. I won't answer for the poster, but yeah - they should be closed. The tax code should be simplified. It should be a 30 second calculation based on your total income and a progressive tax chart, with no deductions or credits for anything. As long as this were done for payroll taxes, i.e., medicare and SS, I might agree. Interesting thought though. If overall taxes were reduced, that might be great. But then you would be stuck with huge state and local liability who are affected by a lot of unfunded mandates. 33% adjustment for me is pretty significant and I am not even in the top income bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 A: Giving money to some one is ok , its just that I do not want the govt telling me who I have to give it to. B: Lets face it the more money of yours the politicians (all) have leads to corruptiion B: I agree, but that doesn't seem to stop them, right now we have had 8 years of deficit and spend. I agree with the premise, but we should have a balanced budget pay as you go amendment including for military spending. Nothing should be exempt from having to pay for it requirements. It would keep everyone a lot more honest. However, that would go against your first statement and is part of the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8. We all contribute to: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The bolded part can be broadly interpreted and is. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 As long as this were done for payroll taxes, i.e., medicare and SS, I might agree. Interesting thought though. If overall taxes were reduced, that might be great. But then you would be stuck with huge state and local liability who are affected by a lot of unfunded mandates. 33% adjustment for me is pretty significant and I am not even in the top income bracket. That's a maximum, and it's pretty much factored in already - that's why the amount taken out of your paycheck for given deductions claimed comes pretty close to how much you actually owe. It's not found money. (I should also point out that state taxes reverse this, forcing you to include taxes paid back into your raw income.) Why would state and local issues be any different with a streamlined federal tax process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 That's a maximum, and it's pretty much factored in already - that's why the amount taken out of your paycheck for given deductions claimed comes pretty close to how much you actually owe. It's not found money. (I should also point out that state taxes reverse this, forcing you to include taxes paid back into your raw income.) Why would state and local issues be any different with a streamlined federal tax process? Agreed and I knew that when I wrote the previous post, but there is a political and communications problem that prevents it from happening. Something about the State and County level that allows this crap to fly under the radar screen making it hard to ID the perpetrators and address the problem. My problem is however, not with funding the services, but doing so in a streamlined cost effective manner. Most of these services that the state provides would not be provided by the Private sector with any kind of broad based coverage, but they are necessary... school funding, police, fire, roads, consumer protections, prisons, unless the private sector can make huge profits at the expense of tax payers. Not sure there is a good answer, but I do believe that keep both the public and private sector off guard by both auditing and switching the power base of the funding sources every once in a while would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts