Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Flat tax renews fight on 'trickle-down economics'

Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:25 PM EDT
politics, us, gop, 2012, tax, flat-tax
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 4 photos
<p>FILE - In this Oct. 13, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks in Redmond, Wash.  The flat tax is making a comeback among Republican presidential candidates. Most of the contenders _Mitt Romney's an exception — offer a variation of the tax plan under which everyone pays the same rate. But a flat tax faces tough opposition in Congress because it tends to favor the rich at the expense of others.  (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)</p>

FILE - In this Oct. 13, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks in Redmond, Wash. The flat tax is making a comeback among Republican presidential candidates. Most of the contenders _Mitt Romney's an exception — offer a variation of the tax plan under which everyone pays the same rate. But a flat tax faces tough opposition in Congress because it tends to favor the rich at the expense of others. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The flat tax is making a comeback among Republican presidential candidates. But it faces tough opposition in Congress because it tends to favor the rich at the expense of other taxpayers, renewing an old debate about "trickle-down economics."

Most of the top GOP contenders — Mitt Romney's an exception — offer a variation of the tax plan in which everyone pays the same rate. Businessman Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 proposal, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry unveiled a 20 percent flat tax on income this week. Even Romney foresees a flatter tax system in the future, though he favors something closer to the current setup in the short term.

The idea of a flat tax has long been championed by conservative politicians as being simple and fair. Publisher Steve Forbes made it a centerpiece of his Republican presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000. Forbes has endorsed Perry, calling his economic plan "the most exciting plan since (Ronald) Reagan's."

"American families deserve a system that is low, flat and fair," Perry wrote in his tax plan. "They should be able to file their taxes on a postcard instead of a massive novel-length document."

Conservative economists argue a flat tax would promote long-term economic growth by lowering taxes on the people who save and invest the greatest share of their income: the wealthy.

Lowering taxes on the wealthy, however, could prove politically difficult, especially now, with protesters around the country occupying public spaces and calling for the rich to pay more. President Barack Obama and many Democrats in Congress also want higher taxes for the highest-income Americans.

"It's all about political rhetoric," said William McBride, an economist the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank. "The inevitable result of shifting the tax burden away from saving and investment is that you reduce the tax burden on the rich."

Liberals and many moderates complain that a flat tax is a giveaway to the rich, renewing an old debate over whether the benefits of tax cuts for those at the top trickle down to the rest of the population.

"This idea of lowering taxes on high-income people and somehow middle class people will benefit has been there for a long time," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Obviously it hasn't worked very well."

Flat tax plans by both Cain and Perry have provisions to protect low-income families from tax increases. But that raises questions about who will be left to pay the tab, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"If you exempt the low-income people from higher taxes, if you cut the taxes for the wealthy, getting the same amount of revenue means the middle class are going to pay more, a lot more," Williams said.

The federal income tax currently has six marginal tax rates, also known as tax brackets. The lowest rate is 10 percent, and it applies to taxable income up to $17,000, for a married couple filing jointly. The top tax rate is 35 percent, on taxable income above $379,150.

"Taxable income" is income after deductions and exemptions, which can greatly reduce the amount that is taxed. There are also many tax credits that can further reduce tax bills.

In all, nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income tax because their incomes are so low or because they qualify for so many tax breaks, according to the Tax Policy Center. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay, on average, 7.2 percent of their income in federal income taxes.

By contrast, the top 10 percent of households, in terms of income, pay more than half of all federal taxes and more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Cain's plan would scrap most of the current tax system. He would eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and replace the progressive federal income tax with a flat 9 percent tax on income. He would lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 9 percent, and impose a new 9 percent national sales tax. The tax on capital gains would be eliminated.

The only income tax deductions allowed under Cain's original plan were for charitable contributions. He has since said people living below the poverty line — $22,314 for a family of four — would also be exempt from income tax.

Perry's plan would impose an optional 20 percent flat tax. Families could choose between the current tax structure and a new 20 percent tax on income, presumably picking the one that taxes them the least.

Perry's flat tax would preserve deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes. It also includes a $12,500 exemption for individuals and their dependents, meaning a family of four could make $50,000 and pay no federal income tax.

Perry's plan would reduce the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 20 percent and would eliminate the tax on dividends and long-term capital gains.

Romney's tax plan would initially maintain the current tax rates, extending sweeping tax cuts that were enacted under former President George W. Bush and extended through 2012 by Obama. Romney would eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $200,000. He would push to lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent.

In the long term, Romney would "pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base."

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Clinton Conservatives
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (109)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
SgtNickAngel

"Trickle down" just means that the one percent will be pissing all over the rest of us.

  • 21 votes
#1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM EDT
John Bayner

That's what the Pee Party wants.

  • 13 votes
#1.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
RI Mom

Eliminate ALL Loopholes, write-offs, subsidies, deferments....

if you truly believe in CHARITY , this isn't a problem.

SEVENTY THOUSAND PAGES of IRS "how-to" is an advantage to the wealthiest.

Just pay your "Bush tax gift"....and stop trying to cheat the system.

All our debts and priorities should see a huge boost in income.

It isn't what we pay in taxes...it is what has been DEDUCTED

(just a parady on the Republican "we don't have a revenue problenm.... we have a spending problem")

  • 11 votes
#1.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
IndependentVoter

we don't have a revenue problenm.... we have a spending problem

Agreed

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:57 PM EDT
Reliant

The current tax code favors those with the most money, and those who can leverage money to extract profits out of financial transactions rather than use it to build business. Just because you have enough money to buy enough oil and gas futures to cause the price to raise and guarantee yourself a profit on the transaction does not mean it is not theft, it is just government sanctioned theft. I don't think most Americans want to live and Winner Take All America, there needs to be social and economic justice and opportunity for everyone.

  • 12 votes
#1.4 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:06 PM EDT
Dr. Reid

'trickle-down economics'

Have never worked and never will.

  • 22 votes
#1.5 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:07 PM EDT
ozzwald

IndependentVoter

we don't have a revenue problenm.... we have a spending problem

Agreed

Our "revenues" are equal to what we paid in taxes 50 years ago. Unless you are claiming that you can live off 1960's average salary of $4,007.12, you are just repeating nonsense talking points.

So how about it, are you going to tell your boss that you don't have a revenue problem, you have a spending problem so to cut back your salary to it's 1960 equivalent?

Didn't think so.

  • 17 votes
#1.6 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:23 PM EDT
follow the money

"trickle Down Economics"

here you go:

http://www.senate.gov/general/search/search_cfm.cfm?q=trickle+down+economics&site=default_collection&num=10&filter=0&x=9&y=8

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:31 PM EDT
leoooyhteDeleted
Ripley8

IndependentVoter

we don't have a revenue problenm.... we have a spending problem

Agreed

spending-statistics-republicans-vs-democrats

Most people believe that Democrats are big spenders and that Republicans are tight-fisted. The evidence leads to a very different conclusion.

…

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

…

In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

The results are quite clear – not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such "necessities" as creating wars. Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions. So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it's campaign of FUD, and people will listen.

http://atypicalguy.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/spending-statistics-republicans-vs-democrats/

  • 10 votes
#1.9 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:17 PM EDT
Ripley8

ah , the flat tax argument ..

usually proposed by the ignorant or rich.

I've seen posts like this elsewhere for example ...

Say the feds do the math and a flat income tax of 27% for all Americans

The full time college student who works part time and earns $8000 owes $2160.

The single parent who works full time and earns $31,000 owes $8370 in income tax.

The physician who earns $245,000 owes $66,150.

And the NBA player who earns $2.6 million owes $702.000.

the bite into the income of working people affects their daily living more. The physician and NBA player can still live pretty comfortably.

The Flat Tax
Why It Won't Work for America

Scott E. Hicko

In the first book to speak out against a flat tax, author Scott E. Hicko, CPA, passionately insists that a flat tax would shift more of the tax burden onto the working class and destroy the American dream. The flat tax is touted by proponents as a measure that would streamline taxation procedures and lower taxes for most working people. However, Scott E. Hicko says under the flat tax the super wealthy would pay less tax while the nation's working class would carry the nation's tax burden.

Scott E. Hicko, a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Financial Planner, has been actively involved in the financial service industry for the last twenty-five years. He's a licensed Security Broker, Insurance Broker and Real Estate Broker. He has worked with virtually every facet of federal income taxation. After seven years as partner in a Chicago CPA Firm, Hicko founded The Hicko CPA Group and The Hicko-Fincancial Planning Group in 1978. A native of Indiana, Scott graduated from Indiana University in 1971 with a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting and recieved his MBA in Finance from DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. He and his wife Ruth have two children, Jennifer and Scott.

http://www.addicusbooks.com/view_author.cfm?id=44

  • 9 votes
#1.10 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:17 PM EDT
Tchem

Forget the trickle down economics of a flat tax...implement a trickle down work ethic. That alone would save on gov't assistance programs, as well as provide extra tax income. After all, there is food rotting on the vine.

A trickle down education would also save communities ~$500,000 over a 25-30 yr period for EACH of those 1.2 million HS dropouts each year! 1% increase in male U.S. high school graduation rates would amount to $1.4 billion. http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/economic-cost-of-high-school-dropout-crisis/

    #1.11 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM EDT
    mountainmike-1199289

    If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear
    and

    Analysis: 12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5%on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/56809745/12-Corporations-Pay-Effective-Tax-Rate-of-Negative-1-5-on-171-Billion-in-Profits

    Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

    NO TRICKLE DOWN!!!

    We have a trickle up economy. Leave it to Republicans to confuse down with up. Th rich are getting richer, the super rich are getting super richer, and the multi billionaire, multi national corporations that are not reinvesting in America and American jobs are getting obscenely rich. In the meantime, the middle class is being reduced to being the working poor by all of the inflation caused by Greenspan and Bernacke printing out trillions of dollars of paper money and Wall Street speculating in oil and food to cause nationwide inflation.

    • 9 votes
    #1.12 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:46 PM EDT
    suz-3786636

    Toothbrush said I have the dirtiest job, TP said yeah right.

      #1.13 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:05 PM EDT
      OomYaaqub

      Say the feds do the math and a flat income tax of 27% for all Americans. The full time college student who works part time and earns $8000 owes $2160. The single parent who works full time and earns $31,000 owes $8370 in income tax. Ripley,

      Ripley, you are dead wrong. Did you even read the article? According to the Perry plan, the exemption for each person (not each taxpayer) would be $12,500. The plan calls for a 20% tax for any amount over that. Therefore, that student wouldn't owe a penny. The single mom with one child would only owe tax on the last $6000, which would be $1200, or $46 out of every paycheck if she's paid every two weeks. If she had two kids, she would owe nothing. A family of four would only be taxed on income OVER $50,000, which is more than my own family of four has ever made in a single year; in fact it's the median income right now. That means even more working class families would be removed from the tax rolls entirely than is currently the case, which I consider a very good thing. (So did Ronald Reagan back in the day, BTW.)

      Of course there is no mention of the refundable tax credits like the EITC in this plan, and if it were done away with, the single mother in your example would lose out. The family living on $45,000 would benefit. But please note that Perry's plan would give taxpayers a CHOICE of paying the current rate or the flat rate. Since you get a choice, what's not to like?

      There's an obvious problem though. This might not be revenue neutral, and in a time of horrendous deficits we cannot afford to lower revenue. I'll leave that to the economists to calculate. But people who attack alternative tax plans should get their facts straight before they condemn. NOBODY is proposing a literal flat tax on the very first dollar earned with no exemptions whatsoever. We need to lay that strawman to rest right now.

        #1.14 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:23 PM EDT
        renee219-2390107

        OomYaaqub,

        So how do you feel about the fact that Perry's plan eliminates the capital gains tax? Right now the majority of the wealthy receive the vast majority of their income from capital gains on investments, they are already paying a much lower rate on their taxes because capital gains is a flat 15% already he wants it to be 0%. So the a wealthy person who receives no "earned income" but lives entirely off of investment income pays absolutely no tax! Fair? I'm sure if your one of the top 1% you'd think so, but what about the rest of the 99%?

        • 7 votes
        #1.15 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:53 PM EDT
        OomYaaqub

        So how do you feel about the fact that Perry's plan eliminates the capital gains tax?

        I agree with you, that is clearly a weakness of the plan, even aside from the issue of fairness. With half of all taxpayers owing nothing whatsoever, we wouldn't bring in nearly enough revenue unless we keep the capital gains tax. Nobody has come up with a plan that doesn't need a lot of tweaking.

        Obviously I'm not the top 1%, BTW. I just explained above that my husband and I have never even made enough to owe taxes under the Perry plan, mainly because we have a sick child and can't both work at the same time. We don't even pay federal income taxes NOW. We're part of the 47% that doesn't. I refuse to call myself part of the "99%" because that puts me in the same category as most wealthy professional couples, which is obviously ridiculous. What good is a pretend "class" that ranks very comfortable people living in gated suburban communities and driving two late model cars with the working poor in the inner city who take the bus?

          #1.16 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:22 PM EDT
          mstanley2265

          Better check the legislation then, they're working on a minimum tax for low income families while everyone watches the fun of the debates. It's in the House attached to some vague bill on health care. :)

          • 3 votes
          #1.17 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:10 AM EDT
          Wizeguy

          For 30 years we have had Reganomics, Trickle Down, Voo Doo Economics...whatever you call it, it has not worked....These policies were supoosed make us (the middle class) prosper...the only reason our Government runs on a deficit is that there is not enough revenue to support the needs of the people...for 30 years it was laid on the back of the middle class while the 1% took the $$ and ran...I for one have been Squeezed Enough Already....

          • 5 votes
          #1.18 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:51 AM EDT
          Rational AmeriCAN

          The current tax code favors those with the most money,...

          What? This is drivel. The current tax code allows half of us to pay nothing.

          -------------------------------------------

          Current State:

          Option 1 -Earn money. Owe a percentage to be paid. Government pays you more than you owed! What is that tax rate? Is it negative?

          Option 2 - Earn money. Owe a percentage to be paid. Government refunds it all. That tax rate is zero.

          Option 3 -Earn money. Owe a percentage to be paid. Government gives it to those in Option 1.

          -----------------------

          Future State (Flat Tax with a front side deduction)

          Option 1 - Make less than the deduction - pay nothing in taxes

          Option 2 - Make more than the deduction - pay the percentage to the government.

          Simple. Perhaps too simple for Democrats who would rather use the tax code to enslave the poor.

          • 1 vote
          #1.19 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:25 PM EDT
          Rational AmeriCAN

          Wizeguys has his Liberal Talking Point Handbook out and typed out his response as usual and expected.

          Tell me how having the highest corporate tax impacts jobs in America? How about for small businesses who have to file at the highest individual tax rates.

          • 1 vote
          #1.20 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM EDT
          Dr. Reid

          What? This is drivel. The current tax code allows half of us to pay nothing.

          The rich earn a majority of their income from capital gains, yet the tax on capital gains is flat and low, this is way the rich have much less of there total wealth taxed, than most of mainstream America.

          The current tax code favors those with the most money,...

          This is why the above assertion can be seen as true.

          I am not in support of raising the capital gains tax, in a down economy, however I will not support cutting that tax either.

          Btw, by mother is from a rich Mexican family, my father is from a rich Italian one, I am the 1% and I am no anti-capitalist, simply a rich, progressive, rational American.

          (I ask this as a friend.) What is your story?

          • 5 votes
          #1.21 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:28 PM EDT
          Rational AmeriCAN

          Born to a soldier/coal miner. My grandfather and most of my uncles were also coal miners. I paid for my own college with cash by working many jobs from age 14 on. I received a degree in Mechanical Engineering and went to work in Automotive Industry and now the Electrical Industry. I am best described by Liberal Progressives as an evil corporatist, since I outsource manufacturing from the US to China, Mexico and other nations world wide as part of my role in a global company. I am at my core a conservative Constitutionalist with a liberal social agenda. I am Buddhist and give $25K a year to charity and am extremely active in my community. I sponsor 5 scholarships at my local community college to people who cannot afford to go.

          I am not in the 1%. I make on average $250Kor less.

          Capital gains is on income generated with wealth. It is not income that most people get in terms of a job. Capital gains taxes have been lowered multiple times in the last 30 years and each time the federal government got more revenue. It is the argument that would we rather have people risk their capital or sit on it. I would rather we risk it.

          Income taxes in my opinion should be flat and everyone should pay something. We can even have a big deduction for all. Corporate taxes result in a ROI for projects that lead to outsourcing.

          Thanks for a rational debate instead of a talking point melee. Something far too few are willing to do.

          • 1 vote
          #1.22 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:48 AM EDT
          OomYaaqub

          Better check the legislation then, they're working on a minimum tax for low income families while everyone watches the fun of the debates. It's in the House attached to some vague bill on health care. :)

          Any idiots who came up with THAT don't have the intelligence to understand the tax code. Such a proposal would obviously mean dismantling the refundable tax credits, since right now many families don't just pay NO tax, they get money "back" that was never withheld, even though it is still called a refund. That would totally mess up a wonderful program that Nixon and Ronald Reagan were both highly in favor of. I don't believe such legislation could pass, but sheesh, what idiots.

          Then again, these are the same geniuses who demand that if a woman applies for child support or any government benefits for her children, she must say on the application what state her children were conceived in. One is tempted to say something like "the state of intoxication" but they want an actual US state. Problem is, anyone who's studied biology knows that children aren't actually conceived during sex, but up to 72 hours later. So, if you live in a border area and commute to another state on a daily basis, you have no freaking idea! I thought it would sound bad, though, to say that my son could have been conceived on the Metro train as it traveled under the Potamac during rush hour.

          • 1 vote
          #1.23 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:46 PM EDT
          Reply
          John Bayner

          Still waiting for that golden shower to trickle down from the Bush tax cuts.

          • 10 votes
          Reply#2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:49 PM EDT
          newwtricks

          I bet you are also waiting for unemployment to never go above 8 percent too.

          • 3 votes
          #2.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:54 PM EDT
          OomYaaqub

          Actually, the Bush tax cuts benefitted everybody. I know we paid less taxes under Bush than under Clinton even though our family income was in the neighborhood of $35,000 to support four people. In fact we actually paid "negative tax" thanks to his expansion of the refundable credits (aka free money from the government to encourage the working poor.)

          I have sometimes worked as a tax professional in the past. One thing I learned is that the average client doesn't even bother to compare his or her tax return from previous years. Although I was required per company policy to do this with them, you could just see their eyes glaze over. The point is that most people have no idea whether their tax liability has gone up or down. All they care about is the amount withheld from their paycheck (which they are in control of even though they don't understand that either) and their refund the following year. Most people actually think it's good to get a big refund back even though it really means you have stupidly provided Uncle Sam with an interest free loan when you could have been earning interest on the money instead.

          • 3 votes
          #2.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:32 PM EDT
          Ripley8

          OomYaaqub

          Actually, the Bush tax cuts benefitted everybody.

          and helped drive us into this recession/depression. Tax cuts do not create jobs.

          Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says

          Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

          Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

          The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

          Reagan and Clinton Raised Taxes in Recessions--And Created ~40M Jobs.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/reagan-and-clinton-raised_b_714155.html

          A Simple Explanation for a Strange Paradox: Why the US Economy Grew Faster When Tax Rates Were High, and Grew Slower When Tax Rates Were Low

          http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=261

          fyi ...

          Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
          http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

          Who's the Better Manager of the Economy, Republicans or Democrats?
          http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html

          Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
          http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

          Bush Latest GOPer to Show Democrats Better for the Economy
          By Jon Perr Sunday Jan 25, 2009

          http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

          Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
          http://www.slate.com/id/2199810

          • 5 votes
          #2.3 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:10 AM EDT
          freemason9

          Oomyaaqub said:

          Actually, the Bush tax cuts benefitted everybody. I know we paid less taxes under Bush than under Clinton even though our family income was in the neighborhood of $35,000 to support four people. In fact we actually paid "negative tax" thanks to his expansion of the refundable credits (aka free money from the government to encourage the working poor.)

          This actually kind of explains Bush's giant deficits--and how he doubled the federal debt. Nearly all economic growth in the Bush era can be attributed, in fact, to federal deficit spending. Does this negate the wisdom of "supply side" economic theory? Because it was never much more "supply side" than during the anemic Bush years.

          • 1 vote
          #2.4 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:54 PM EDT
          Rational AmeriCAN

          Tax cuts do not create jobs - per Ripley8.

          So Tax Increases create jobs? Not so much either.

          How about we consider a different statement:

          ----- The right tax cuts create jobs. -------

          That tax cut would be to reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 20% or some number of your choosing. What would that do? Other than change the result on the ROI calculator such that job sourcing to low cost countries would not look so good especially when considering the length of the supply chain.

          Given that my job is outsourcing I feel pretty comfortable making that statement.

          • 2 votes
          #2.5 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:33 PM EDT
          Dr. Reid

          That tax cut would be to reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 20% or some number of your choosing. What would that do? Other than change the result on the ROI calculator such that job sourcing to low cost countries would not look so good especially when considering the length of the supply chain.

          I could support that, but first it would be necessarily to close the loopholes, which would actually result in a large tax increase for the largest companies.

          Right now they are the ones that have zero, or close to zero effective corporate tax rates, yet they are also the same companies that are doing the outsourcing.

          So it is not high corporate tax rates that are causing the outsourcing.

          However I could support cutting the tax rate, and closing loopholes, if someone could come up with evidence that this will benefit both small businesses, and the economy.

          Said plan is almost assured to both raise revenue, and put more money in the pockets of small businesses. If there was a way to guarantee that the small businesses would actually spend that money by hiring new people. Then I do not see how anyone could disagree with this plan.

          But in return, it is important to make sure everyone understands, a down economy is not the time to balance the budget.

          It is demand that drives the economy, not supply. Having a large supply but no demand helps no one.

          Both spending cuts or raising revenue will always harm demand in some way and make the problem worse.

          However raising taxes on the rich does not harm demand as much as raising taxes for the poor or middle classes or cutting programs aimed at benefiting the poor and middle classes.

          This is simple common sense, there are more poor and middle class people than rich people, and rich person with a personal income tax rate of 35% is far more likely to spend than a poor person with a personal income tax rate of zero.

          Taking half of all the wealth of the bottom 48% who control only 2% of the wealth in this country, will raise the same amount of revenue as raising the personal income tax rate on the top 1% by 2 percentage points, about 500 billion dollars.

          Now which of the two will cause more harm to the economy?

          Rational AmeriCAN

          I hope you will be a rational Newsviner and will accept my F.R. as a metaphorical oak leaf, representing by desire for a rational discussion.

          • 3 votes
          #2.6 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:11 PM EDT
          renee219-2390107

          That tax cut would be to reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 20% or some number of your choosing.

          Sure reducing the corporate tax rate is not a bad idea at all if as Dr. Reid suggested the loopholes and subsidies are removed. The reality is corporate tax is passed on to the consumer anyway. However even if the corporate tax is reduced to say even 10% don't expect to see your job stay at home. It is not taxes that lure corporations away from the US, for one thing a multi-national corporation just does some fancy book keeping and makes it appear as though the majority of the value added to its products was performed in a tax haven country, therefore the majority of the income comes from a tax haven country. Take a look at GE's taxes!

          The real problem is a combination of things and very little to do with corporate tax. From those tax havens I spoke of to the fact that they do not have to pay living wages, provide safe work environments, they are able to pollute and they can exploit the natural resources in other countries all pay a huge role in why jobs are leaving the US. While eliminating corporate tax might stop the abuse of tax havens (and I did say might there are countless issues involved with tax havens and offshore banking which are downright criminal) it will do nothing to solve the other issues. Those issues can only be addressed through a change in trade laws.

          Sadly both parties seem to support more free trade and free trade with no conditions or restrictions is the biggest culprit of the mass exodus of US manufacturing jobs! Free trade should be limited to countries who have the same environmental regulation and their workers are paid a living wage, if they do not they are charged a tariff or penalty which will force the price of their product to be competitive with US companies who do pay workers living wages and take care of the environment.

          • 1 vote
          #2.7 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:20 PM EDT
          OomYaaqub

          When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

          Why is it a good thing when the savings rate falls? The government actually gives you tax breaks for saving, at least for retirement. (Your 401K, IRA, and the Saver's Credit.)

            #2.8 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:48 PM EDT
            Reply
            AlphaDogReporter

            Supply side doesn't work. It never has, never will. Trying it over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.

            • 11 votes
            Reply#3 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:54 PM EDT
            Shelby Davenport

            I can't believe ANYONE is still making an argument for this!!!

            • 11 votes
            #3.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:10 PM EDT
            mountainmike-1199289

            Here is the long term track record of supply side, trickle down, voodoo Reaganomics:

            What They Won't Tell You about the National Debt
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA

            Reagan and the two Bushes account for $9.2 trillion of the national debt, over $11 trillion with interest added in. That's about 77 percent of the entire national debt!

            Tax cuts to the rich and tax loopholes for multi billionaire corporations have ALWAYS been put on the national debt tab. Reagan, the alleged fiscal conservative icon of the Republican Party raised taxes on most Americans, gave the rich tax cuts and was the first post WWII president to substantially increase the national debt.

            George W Bush incredibly re established tax cuts to the rich while also establishing to unfunded, multi trillion dollar quagmires in the Mideast. From Medicare Drug Benefits to the Iraq War, Republican veterans like Boehner, Cantor and McConnell were there to eagerly vote for all of the Bush spending binge that nearly doubled the national debt. They voted 7 times in the House and 7 times in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling with no major issues expressed.

            • 8 votes
            #3.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:53 PM EDT
            Reply
            Brian-497171

            The government should not be subsidizing the rich.

            Your reward for being rich in America is that you get to be rich in America.

            • 8 votes
            Reply#4 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:54 PM EDT
            IndependentVoter

            Yeah..we need to punish the rich.

            • 3 votes
            #4.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:01 PM EDT
            mstanley2265

            Eliminating tax deductions that have benefitted the few and increased the deficit? Hardly punishment more like an end to legal 'tax evasion'

            • 10 votes
            #4.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:07 PM EDT
            Brian-497171

            Yeah..we need to punish the rich.

            No we don't, and we don't need coddle them either.

            • 7 votes
            #4.3 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:08 PM EDT
            IndependentVoter

            Eliminating tax deductions that have benefitted the few

            Name one that I have that you do not.

            • 4 votes
            #4.4 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:26 PM EDT
            SgtNickAngel

            Yeah..we need to punish the rich.

            Don't worry; republicans want to punish YOU.

            • 8 votes
            #4.5 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:48 PM EDT
            renee219-2390107

            Well Independent Voter I don't know where the majority of your income comes from, but mine unlike the wealthy comes from earned income whereas the wealthy get most of their income from investments or capital gains. So any income I make in excess of $39,000 is taxed at a higher effective rate, sincee the majority of the income a wealthy person has from their investments they are taxed at a flat 15% no matter how much they make on the investment income and therefore the majority of their income.

            From Warren Buffet:

            Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

            If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

            www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

            • 10 votes
            #4.6 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:55 PM EDT
            lib50

            I love the way republicans recently started called the rich/elite "job creators". You know they are worried when they pull that crap. It is even in the urban dictionary

            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=job+creator

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihS9M2JXQw

            • 12 votes
            #4.7 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:14 PM EDT
            mountainmike-1199289

            Excuse me for noticing, but most Americans are hurting because of the lack of real jobs, inflation and the current state of a stagnant economy. You should at least think that Republicans need to address these major concerns of the large majority of American people. Instead we are hearing enough about trickle down supply side voodoo Reaganomics to gag on. Santorum is fixated on Sodomy. Perry on Obama's birth certificate. Her air headedness Bachmann isn't fixating on anything, she's just floating around. Newt wants to lecture us on trickle down while buying expensive jewelry at Tiffany's for his mistress, er third wife.

            • 8 votes
            #4.8 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:10 PM EDT
            OomYaaqub

            But eliminating the deductions that only help the rich is EXACTLY what all the tax simplification plans do! The tax code certainly needs to be flatter, if not totally flat, and it definitely needs to be much simpler. More of the working poor SHOULD be exempt while they are raising the next generation--you know, the kids who will be paying for YOUR social security and Medicare when you're retired? We should stop trying to use the tax code in the interests of social engineering except perhaps for corporate enterprise zones in poverty stricken area.

              #4.9 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:38 PM EDT
              Reply
              Vlad's dog

              Same idea, different decade. These guys are stuck on stupid.

              • 12 votes
              Reply#5 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:12 PM EDT
              mountainmike-1199289

              Their trickle down dogma dates back to the 1980's and Reagan. Their deregulation dates back to the 1920's and Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.

              • 8 votes
              #5.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:12 PM EDT
              Reply
              US Citizen-658112

              The idea of an easy tax is attractive. It's the idea of the end of smoke-and-mirrors and complex calculations at least at the personal tax level....that's attractive to me.

              The issue is....when we are taxed over and over again at the Federal, State, and local levels......is any tax really ever going to be either knowable or flat?

              • 2 votes
              Reply#6 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:17 PM EDT
              OomYaaqub

              A lot of states already have a flat tax. My own state does. There is a thing called "tax forgiveness" which is similar to the EITC and helps some working families, but you have to be VERY low income to qualify. About the only deduction is for unreimbursed job expenses (union dues, work-specific clothes like hospital scrubs, tools, and license fees.) The local tax is similar.

                #6.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:42 PM EDT
                Reply
                1Bornagain

                I love this idea. Consider all of the people who currently are not contributing to the tax system but could be; the barber, the waitress, the bartender who currently don't claim their tips, the illegal immigrant who isn't able (and truthfully, if they were would it A) make them want to stay B) Bother Americans so much if they did), what about the drug dealers and gang bangers who will never hold a legitimate job?

                I think the idea of creating a flat tax is brilliant

                • 1 vote
                Reply#7 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:36 PM EDT
                OomYaaqub

                You're confused. The flat tax still has exemptions; in the case of the Perry plan, it's $12,500 per person so a family of four would owe nothing on their first $50,000 of income. Only the amount above that would be taxed.

                The flat tax does nothing whatsoever to tax people receiving ill-gotten gains. Only the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax, would force such people to pay their fair share every time they actually spend their money. Then again, there's also the Libertarian solution: legalize drugs, prostitution, and other victimless crimes so those folks become legitimate businesspeople overnight.

                  #7.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:45 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  BobbyG-420766

                  You don't need "trickle down" in a recession - you need "pouring down"... ;-)

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#8 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:38 PM EDT
                  SgtNickAngel

                  If tax cuts create jobs... lets eliminate all taxes. Then, everyone will then be employed; according to bull@!$%# republican economic theory.

                  • 7 votes
                  Reply#9 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM EDT
                  MeanGene-3334839

                  Actually, cutting taxes to create jobs is a cornerstone of Obama's jobs bill. I hadn't heard that Obama switched parties and became a Republican. Actually he should, as he's been a better Republican than John McCain would have been in office.

                  Republicans aren't just saying that taxes kill jobs. If that's all you've heard then you've simply not been listening. It's the complexity of all the regulations and taxes which are killers. The US Tax code alone is over 60,000 pages. You could build a house out of the wood it would take to print it out. Then there's the endless piles of regulations and hoops to jump through which get to the point of killing industries off.

                  It's been half a century since anybody started a new car manufacturing company in the USA which has actually lasted any length of time. It's been 40 years since the last nuclear power plant was built in America. Microsoft has been an unchallenged monopoly (sorry, Apple fans) for over 30 years now.

                  Why? WHY are no new companies starting business (and creating jobs) in America now? I'll tell you why. It's the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF REGULATIONS, TAXES, AND CODES which no mere mortal could possibly comply with unless he has an ARMY of lawyers at his beck and call.

                  GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. (Ronald Reagan)

                  It used to be, once upon a time in America, that a man could create his own job. He could start his own business, create his own niche, be a self-made man but is that possible in the USA anymore? Not really.

                  Since I brought up Apple a bit, let's reflect on Steve Jobs (R.I.P.) and what he did. He created Apple out of his garage, throwing electronic components together to make what was arguably the first home computer. His revolution was kind of stolen from him (partly due to being overly proprietary, same thing that killed Betamax for Sony) but he did manage to create an empire in the 1970's.

                  Could the same thing happen today? HELL NO. Steve Jobs would have to register his soldering iron with the State of California for using lead, a known carcinogen to the State of California and he'd have to put warning labels all over his workshop along with OSHA-required MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) telling people not to eat the solder because it might cause brain damage.

                  There's brain damage, all right. Brain damage in business-proofing the USA with a ton of regulations and taxes and hoops to jump through, and then wondering where the heck the jobs have gone!

                  Simplicity is a virtue. Keep things simple and the business will come back, the jobs will come back, and some semblence of sanity will be restored when it doesn't take a full-time lawyer and a full-time accountant to open up a crummy LEMONADE STAND in this country anymore.

                  • 4 votes
                  #9.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:43 PM EDT
                  mstanley2265

                  Actually, Private industry and company is the US problem as in they sure aren't helping the US economy in fact they work on messing it up.

                  • 6 votes
                  #9.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:52 PM EDT
                  newwtricks

                  Let's have a 100 percent tax rate for everyone. Then we will also have 100 percent employment, according to liberals.

                  See, Sgt Angel, anyone can post nonsense.

                  • 2 votes
                  #9.3 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:58 PM EDT
                  newwtricks

                  MStanley,

                  Can you further explain how US companies are trying to mess up the economy? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

                  • 2 votes
                  #9.4 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:59 PM EDT
                  mountainmike-1199289

                  MeanGene-3334839

                  Don't regulate Wall Street and they will collapse the economy for the sake of sheer greed every last single time. Don't regulate Big Oil, Koch industries, Big Coal and Big Ag on air, water and food quality, they will gladly kill Americans for profits every last single time. Anti regulation in 2011 is plain stupid.

                  • 6 votes
                  #9.5 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:20 PM EDT
                  OomYaaqub

                  Let's have a 100 percent tax rate for everyone. Then we will also have 100 percent employment, according to liberals.

                  Brilliant! Only we wouldn't be given any actual money back by the IRS. Instead, we would receive script good only at government run stores to which we would soon owe our souls. The nationalized supermarkets would only stock healthy foods approved by the First Lady. You could only buy enough to provide the exact correct number of calories for the people in your household. It goes without saying that fattier foods like meat and cheese would be strictly rationed. GPS monitors would be surgically implanted in everyone so the government could be sure we get enough exercise. The nationalized department stores would only stock unisex clothing similar to the daytime pyjamas worn in China during the Chairman Mao era. The bookstores and libraries would have to keep lists of everything you read--oh wait, don't libraries already have to do that, thanks to the Patriot Act?

                  I'll add the sarcasm tag because I'm sure some Viners would consider such a society a worker's paradise.

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.6 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:56 PM EDT
                  Beau7890

                  newwtricks:

                  U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

                  The companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show. That's a big switch from the 1990s, when they added jobs everywhere: 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad.

                  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704821704576270783611823972.html

                  • 5 votes
                  #9.7 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:20 PM EDT
                  Poorworkingman

                  Let's have a 100 percent tax rate for everyone. Then we will also have 100 percent employment, according to liberals.

                  No jobs = no money = no demand = no job providers = no employement = no jobs = no money = ..... And it's called "society" then "Americans" then "USA".

                  MStanley,

                  Can you further explain how US companies are trying to mess up the economy? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

                  By outsourcing jobs which shrinks the local society ability to increase the "demand". The "demand" creates "the job providers" then the "employent" then "demand" then "the job providers" then the "employment"................then the "Americans" then the "USA".

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.8 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:58 PM EDT
                  Poorworkingman

                  Need more? Here is the easy one, start counting everything you see and take note that how many things are being used, are made in USA and how many are made somewhere else? Now, you know why there are so many unemployed American workers? Or just like you keep refill other bucket with water but keep drinking from this bucket until it's getting empty and you wonder why this bucket is empty?

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.9 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:28 AM EDT
                  OomYaaqub

                  We need an actual industrial policy, like the one they have in Germany.

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.10 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:50 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Steve-485394

                  No, we don't need to punish the rich, nor do we need a flat tax as it will never be fair, ever!

                  The elimination of the mortgage deduction and many others the flat tax would decimate only goes on to additionally hurt the middle class and the small business men and women of America.

                  No argument from me about the fact that as one's income goes up in a flat tax situation.... the amount of taxes paid goes up too! So why the argument against the flax tax? Simple, many two income families are just making it, and with the mortgage deduction, the credit for child care, etc, their nominal rate of tax is only between 5 and 10 percent. I know this as I am a tax preparer and do taxes for many including the well off and those nearly making it. I do businesses, corporations, and even single family mothers working to try to get ahead.

                  A person who makes $250K will have fixed expenses including the tax liability of a flat tax, but after tax revenue or discretionary spending will be at a much higher percent for the those with incomes above $500k and such. A person who makes $80K will have a mortgage a huge portion of his or her income going to taxes, expenses for the family and then if any is left at all, possible saving for education and that proverbial rainy day.

                  I don't think anyone is arguing that the current tax system is broken or needs fixes.... but rather than scrap the whole system, we really do need to have regular accountants who are not bought and paid for by businesses, look at our tax code. We need to encourage business, but not on the backs of the middle class. We need to offer incentives, but not to go after the short term money available by cutting wages and transferring industry to other countries.

                  We are global, but we can be competitive here in US without cutting the throats of our workforce. Profits are needed but salaries that that gown to 300 % of the common worker because of wreckless short term policies and factory moves to outside of the US need to be curtailed and reversed. We can buld products that are competitive around the world and sought after, we just need both commerce and our government to work together putting politics aside and do what is best for the USA, not their parties.

                  A well made product will sell anywhere, crap just sits on shelves! Build that Better Mousetrap and it will sell. Offer tax incentives to those entrepenuers who are willing to risk on the American worker and help America grow its middle class.

                  Flat tax no, a better system, one that eliminates the loop holes, the incentives to those corporations who don't need them or use them for gain here in the USA, yes get rid of those!

                  • 6 votes
                  Reply#10 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:56 PM EDT
                  OomYaaqub

                  Simple, many two income families are just making it, and with the mortgage deduction, the credit for child care, etc, their nominal rate of tax is only between 5 and 10 percent

                  Okay, now explain why renters and people with homes that are paid for should have to subsidize people with mortgages. Then perhaps you can explain why families who make the sacrifice to have a stay at home parent, or who work opposite shifts so the kids are always with a parent should have to subsidize yuppie dual income couples who generally earn a lot more than we do. Most of these "social engineering" type deductions are blatently unfair to those who don't benefit. Perry's idea of a $12,500 per PERSON exempition is surely the way to go. It isn't up to the IRS to tell people how to live.

                  Oh, and BTW, as a person trained in accounting I can tell you that the folks who need to examine our tax code are economists, not accountants.

                    #10.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:01 PM EDT
                    Steve-485394

                    Oom: The obvious is that those who have homes already paid for have already enjoyed what you are willing to take away. I guess we can just throw away the "American Dream" of owing a home, as one of the supporting tiers of ownership is the mortgage deduction given to those who use Schedule "A" and not the standard deduction.

                    Ok, you found me out, a former Investment Banker, now an enrolled agent with the IRS who does taxes to supplement my retirement income and help those who don't understand the tax code at all. Sure there are good programs out there like Turbo, but unless one has a somewhat crude knowledge of the tax code, one is missing many benefits and paying too many taxes. My job for my clients is to help them pay as little as possible and I do it well.

                    Renters, yes, many years ago I was one, worked my butt off to be part of that "American Dream" and entered the housing market and my wife and myself are owners. I see all too many who cry for a flat tax or a fair tax on consumption who have no idea of what they are speaking. If one could truly put together a tax code that would be fair, but fair to whom? Do we still offer breaks to those whose income is at or below the poverty level? Do we increase the exemption for each person, each child (within limits) so that those who are earning less than $100K (I am being generous, but at least I would skew the benefits more to those at a slightly higher income than lower) and how do we offer incentives to those entrepreneurs who are willing to risk capital to put ideas to work, those same ideas which made the US what it was, and can be again.

                    Economists, remember what is said about them, if you put them end to end, they could never come up with a conclusion or agreement. How about a forum where we have both working together, economists and accountants who don't have or give a hoot about the political parties, only that they care about America and what it can be without the current crap we see in business and politics.

                    Social engineering...... let's see, trying to even out the bumps for those who are trying to do all that they can just to stay ahead, provide for their families, be productive and own a part of the American Dream..... yes, I like to keep some of the programs, but am willing to discuss any and all.

                    Long term planning, most CEO's have thrown it out the window for the short term profits, the bonuses they can make, the pay they take home, the boards they can sit on...etc..etc. Having been an Investment Banker for over 31 years, I saw first hand the degradation of the middle class in favor of the wealthy, and in my own way fought those who sought to enslave the middle class and keep them uneducated.... I was a white hat, fighting my own firms at times and both my personal wealth and retirement suffered, but at least I can live knowing what I have done was always aimed at social justice and being fair and honest! The recent market crash came from those whose greed exceeded their ability to control it, and all of us have suffered.

                    I enjoy a good discussion, if you wish we can expand this..... both in discussing social needs vs greed and elimination of any constraints on business.

                    • 3 votes
                    #10.2 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:50 AM EDT
                    OomYaaqub

                    Oom: The obvious is that those who have homes already paid for have already enjoyed what you are willing to take away

                    Not always. I paid cash for my house, which only cost $40K BTW. That was 15 years ago for a very large Victorian rowhouse in a major Northeastern city. I have several major universities, parks, a public pool, museums, libraries, bodegas of every ethnicity and many nice restuarants all within walking distance. Housing prices are still very low here. When I have done people's taxes in an inner city office, I discovered that most of my clients who did have mortgages still couldn't benefit from the mortgage deduction because you only get that if you itemize. Well, they paid so little on their mortgages that they were much better off taking the standard deduction. This is the poor subsidizing the rich, and it is blatently unfair.

                    Renters, of course, fare even worse than people like me who get to live rent and mortgage free. And don't tell me their landlord lowers the rent just because he can deduct real estate taxes from his profit (if any.) I've been an inner city landlady. Rents aren't based on the landlord's expenses, but on the law of supply and demand.

                    Mortgage deductions just encourage people to buy more house than they can really afford, which encourages them to move to far flung suburbs and pollute the atmosphere by commuting 40 miles a day in their gas guzzling SUV's. Meanwhile our cities are allowed to deteriorate. It also means couples need two incomes to pay the mortgage, leading to a higher default rate if one is laid off or there's a divorce.

                      #10.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:00 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      AlphaDogReporter

                      If tax cuts create jobs, we should be at full employment with about 10 million job openings left over. Instead it's just the opposite.

                      Supply side DOES NOT WORK; it is a scam to make the rich richer.

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#11 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:57 PM EDT
                      (BLACK_DRAGON)

                      kinda looks like he's trying to cast a harry potter spell

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#12 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 PM EDT
                      Poorworkingman

                      I wouldn't want to mention the 9-9-9 plan yet due to a lot of grey areas. But 20% Perry plan, let's see. If I am sigle, live on only my capital gain and dividends of 100 G. $100,000(income) - 12,500(allowed deduction) - 5,000(mortgage interest) - 0(state tax) - 100,000(gain and dividends) = negative $17,500. Does it mean that I would get a refund of $17,500 from the government or $350,000? If it is then it's an awesome plan if I am one of them.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#13 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:16 PM EDT
                      OomYaaqub

                      Only the so-called "refundable" tax credits yield negative taxes. Under the current system, there are very few of them. They include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Additional Child Tax Credit, the "Making Work Pay" credit, I think the Adoption Credit, and a couple of others. As far as I know Perry's plan doesn't include refundable credits at all, which is one of its weaknesses.

                        #13.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:07 PM EDT
                        Poorworkingman

                        Still, if someone lives off his/her capital gain and dividends, let's say 100, half mil or even more doesn't have to any taxes while still enjoy public infastructures and among other public services. How could it be fair? Who pays for this burden? Clearly who would this policy serve? It's more distinguishable, more clearer than the one before. Donald, Bill, the Koch, Warren,.... would love this tax code.

                        • 2 votes
                        #13.2 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:33 PM EDT
                        OomYaaqub

                        I don't agree with making capital gains tax free. I think that's ridiculous, because the government would lose too much revenue. As I say all the plans need plenty of tweaking.

                        • 1 vote
                        #13.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:11 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        Ralph-482541

                        More VOO DOO economics. The rich increased their income by 275% and share of the pie by 50%since 1979 (Reagan had the first round of VOO DOO thinking) while the share of the pie for the rest of us have gone down. Sounds like that plan really is a winner for all doesn't it. Let's try more of that one.

                        • 6 votes
                        Reply#14 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:40 PM EDT
                        MeanGene-3334839

                        There ain't no voodoo. Do you know why the share of the pie is getting smaller for the poor? It's because of the economics behind INSTANT GRATIFICATION.

                        Let me give an example. Let's say that Joe Sixpack wants a TV, and let's say that the TV costs $1,000. Joe Sixpack is living paycheck to paycheck, so he doesn't actually have $1,000 so he has two choices. Save up for the TV or finance it.

                        Joe Sixpack decides that he can afford the TV right now, today, if he goes with a "Rent to Own" for $75 per week, and in one short year (and $4,000 later) the TV will be all his. Nevermind that if he'd just wait and save his money for three months, then he'd actually pay $1,000 for a $1,000 TV set.

                        It's not politically correct to blame the poor for impoverishing themselves, but it's the stone cold truth and it needs to be addressed before the problem can ever start to be solved. The culture of easy credit, instant gratification and zero patience in waiting for things has got to stop.

                        Here in Arizona, in last year's election, Arizonans did something that made me proud... they outlawed payday loan shops. The interest rates were beyond ridiculous, 600% APR was not uncommon, and even with APR rates which would make a Mafia Loan Shark blush, the "poor" were running right into the feeding frenzy even though they knew they were the main course for the sharks.

                        Of course the poor are going to get poorer when they're unwilling to admit the limits of what they can afford. The average household credit card debt in the USA is over $10,000 now, and for what? Big screen TV's, Dolby Surround stereos, iPads and a laptop for every kid in the house.

                        If the poor don't want to get poorer, then they'd best stop trying to act rich and racking up debt out the wazoo to keep up with the Joneses.

                        • 3 votes
                        #14.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:22 PM EDT
                        OomYaaqub

                        Wow, Gene, I actually agree with you on something! As a tax preparer, I always tried to talk my clients out of those obscene "refund loans" which as you point out are a worse deal than the Mob would give you. But almost nobody teaches kids these things, even middle class kids. I think a Practical Living/Consumer Math course should be mandatory in every high school.

                          #14.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:11 PM EDT
                          MeanGene-3334839

                          RAL (return anticipation loans) are highway robbery as well, with the fees and interest adding up to an APR often in excess of 200%. I can't believe people actually apply for the things in these days of e-filing when the refunds from the IRS are landing in direct deposit accounts in days, not weeks now.

                          Some of those stupid RAL things have "loan origination fees" in excess of $50 for a loan that matures in a month! It absolutely amazes me that there are people, who in most other things would be considered reasonable, actually agree to be fleeced like that.

                          Most people, if they saw a car loan with an APR rate of 200% would say "heck no!" because they know they're getting taken to the cleaners, but let it be a microloan like a payday loan, a rent-to-own, an RAL, or a pawn shop loan and people are lining up to get literally nickel-and-dimed to death.

                          The latest scam is the auto title loan joints, have you taken a gander at those things? It's a 30-day loan secured by your auto title with a 20% interest, which makes it an APR of 240%!! You would have to be out of your ever-loving mind to finance a car at an APR of 240% but that's EXACTLY what auto title loans are.

                          Now, it's really tempting to blame the loan sharks, after all, they're the ones with their hands up to their elbows in the pie here, but they wouldn't have any scam going at all if the so-called "poor" wouldn't play ball with them. They're just the supply side. It's the fools and their money who are soon being parted.

                          It's not just the poor getting poorer so much as it is the fools getting foolisher. It used to be common sense that living beyond one's means was a good way to wind up in the poorhouse but such common sense is uncommon anymore.

                          Worse, the poor ruin their own case for aid when they look for all the world to be rich. The social workers go into their apartments and see big screen TV's in every room, state of the art his and hers PC's in the den, shelves full of DVDs and video games, and wonder "how poor can these guys really be?"

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.3 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:30 AM EDT
                          Ralph-482541

                          MeanGene - What rubbish - the typical right wing blame the poor for being poor thinking, what are they complaining about get a job. Of course all the examples you give were devises and schemes dreamed up and put in place by the poor to soak themselves, right I get it. While at the same time the poor also thought up the plan to bail out the money men if every thing went sideways, except they only devised a plan to bail out big business and forgot about themselves. Sounds like a strategy. I would argue that most people earning the median income have every little access to any significant levels of financing and such peoples impact on the overall financing levels of the country is every limited whereas a company like AIG or Lehman Brothers has caused hundreds of billions in bad debts, economic disruptions and job loss, with hardly a whisper of real complaining from the right. Has any one been arrested or gone to jail. Of yea a couple of Indian folks and Bernie Madoff, I guess there were no good old boys of the WASP moneyed class that caused any of these problems. I'll buy that.

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.4 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:50 AM EDT
                          newwtricks

                          MeanGene

                          How absolutely cruel of you! Why must you be so mean to poor people? They don't deserve this. They didn't do anything wrong. They are victims. Victims of rich people who trick them into doing things that keep them poor.

                          Joe Sixpack deserves that $ 1,000.00 TV. And if we had a good form of government, they would take the extra 3,000.00 in interest and refund it to poor Joe, as he was duped into paying 4 times the price. How was he supposed to know? Yes, the Rent to own store had the full terms of the contract in writing, but Joe doesn't want to read it. Yes, they verbally told Joe that in 52 short weeks at $75.00 per week he would own the TV. But Joe didn't have time to take out his $ 300.00 smart phone and pull up the calculator app to multiply $75.00 X 52. This is where the government can step in, and force the Rent to own people to refund Joe $ 3,000.00. Oh, the store won't do it directly. No, instead, we will tax the store through extra regulations and then give extra credits to Joe, so that he still gets his $3,000.00 back. It is only fair. After all, $ 1,000.00 TV's are a neccessity of life, just like Starbucks and smartphones and SUV's, (all of which Joe has, while earning $ 10.25 an hour at Walmart). No, Joe can't buy health insurance. Too expensive. Between him and his girlfriend who lives with him, they barely have enough to eat Mcdonalds for lunch everyday, Starbucks every morning, and Applebees twice a week. Oh, and they just got new Ipads to stay in touch with the rest of the world.

                          So, you should be nicer to Joe. He needs help. Yes, I know, he has a college degree in "Classical Studies". But how did he know that there is no job prospects for a person with a degree in that field? It sounded so cool when he got $ 75,000 in school loans to finance his education. BTW, he hasn't made one payment on his school loans in 5 years. Not his fault though. If he could just land his dream job of being a professor at the Institute for Classical Studies, which doesn't exist, and make the $200K that he thinks he deserves, then he would be happy to pay back 15 percent of his school loans and have the rest written off. Remember, Joe doesn't want charity.

                          So try to be nicer to poor people. They are victims. It doesn't matter that the choices they make come with consequences. If they make a bad choice, it is up to the rich people to just turn the other way and let them continue to make bad choices. It is the American way.

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.5 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:22 AM EDT
                          Jeremiah-2094437

                          just a thought kinda steming from My man MeanGene...

                          population ... there's just too many poor people?

                          I'm just thinking, I mean multiplying like rabbits, and barely able to make it as it is, and having more children? cant make it ... easier yeah?

                            #14.6 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:55 AM EDT
                            OomYaaqub

                            RAL (return anticipation loans) are highway robbery as well, with the fees and interest adding up to an APR often in excess of 200%. I can't believe people actually apply for the things in these days of e-filing when the refunds from the IRS are landing in direct deposit accounts in days, not weeks now.

                            Believe me, I tried very hard to talk my clients out of those things. By law I had to disclose the terms, but I went beyond and actually tried to get them to understand why it was such a terrible idea. It didn't help. They couldn't see beyond, "I want my money NOW, not three weeks from now!" Unless you have to bail you kid out of jail or you're about to get evicted or have the electricity shut off, I just can't understand it.

                              #14.7 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:15 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              Jeremiah-2094437

                              I see what they did there....

                              Had a man pitch it.... knew it was a bad idea, watched it take hold (even though it was a bad idea) and now that they think that idea has followers they're going to try to ride it....

                              Only problem is , we kinda caught on to it being a STUPID idea.

                              • 5 votes
                              Reply#15 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:25 PM EDT
                              Peter-2556560

                              Wait, haven't we heard n lived in that era where Reaganamics and this same old trickle down, pay more to the those at top and hopefully prosperity would trickle down to the rest of us in society?

                              That was Bush years, and that how we got here right?

                              It's like we know what the problem is but it's okay we'll go back to where we just to be.

                              nah pass!

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#16 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:01 PM EDT
                              Satanick

                              It is hard for me to imagine the Republicans offering a tax rate that benefits the wealthy...

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#17 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:46 PM EDT
                              Rodentrack

                              Haven't we had enough of screwing the middle class? Now, a FLAT TAX?!? Rape the middle class, felate the rich.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#18 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:28 PM EDT
                              ScienceGuy-356641

                              Don't pee on my shoe and call it "trickle-down economics".

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#19 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:44 PM EDT
                              mountainmike-1199289

                              Don't pee on my shoe, call it trickle down and expect my shoe not to be sent up your butt! ( ^ :

                              Speaking of which, trickle down Republicans need a real smack down in 2012.

                              • 6 votes
                              #19.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:22 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              One-Eyed Undertaker

                              It's just shocking to me that the Republicans have the audacity to propose this (i) when income disparity in America has increased to the point where we resemble Mexico moreso than we resemble Europe, (ii) during a recession that's hitting 98% of the country really, really hard while leaving the rich even richer and (iii) during a popular uprising against the rich (Occupy).

                              I'm honestly not even sure what to make of it. Assuming 33% of Americans are Republican, then by definition no more than 6% of Republicans could possibly be in the top 98% of earners (assuming every person in the top 2% is Republican--which is absolutely not the case). If that's the case, exactly who are the Republicans representing when they make these proposals that would actually harm the vast majority of their party?

                              It's like the entire party just put ear muffs on, covered their eyes and started chanting "nah nah nah". Is their faith in these carpetbaggers really that blind and unquestioning? It's like a religion.

                              Please, god, tell me a bunch of poor whites aren't cheering these regressive tax plans along...because that would almost be too depressing to handle.

                              • 6 votes
                              Reply#20 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:52 PM EDT
                              insight-122112

                              Abortion, same-sex marriage, unions, welfare moms, ... The economy, the rich guys will take care of it if the gubmint would leave them alone. Short, simple, stupid. Notice no-one talks about terrorist anymore.

                              • 1 vote
                              #20.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:25 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              imsewvainDeleted
                              suz-3786636

                              Republicans have low expectations when it comes to there tax dollar. Countries and Companies need revenue to function. literally the definition. Tax dollars are to build the USA up, and benefit the taxpayer with a better life. Republicans want Legislators to have the luxury jets unlimited trips around the world, good wages, benefits. GOPs like treating the Legislators like Royalty. Democrats don't want to be suffering fools.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#22 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:12 PM EDT
                              insight-122112

                              I have 1 answer for all repub proposals. NO!

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#23 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:21 PM EDT
                              John Hedin

                              Table of Income Tax Rates in China for an Individual in 2011

                              Tax % Monthly Income (CNY)

                              5%
                              1 - 500

                              10%
                              501 - 2,000

                              15%
                              2,001 - 5,000

                              20%
                              5,001 - 20,000

                              25%
                              20,001 - 40,000

                              30%
                              40,001 - 60,000

                              35%
                              60,001 - 80,000

                              40%
                              80,001 - 100,000

                              45%
                              100,001 and above

                                Reply#24 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:51 PM EDT
                                imsewvainDeleted
                                rational thought-3748544

                                If middle class voters fall for this flat tax scam brought to you by the bankers and wall street cons then they deserve a future of a spiraling down of their standard of living.

                                • 6 votes
                                Reply#26 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:03 PM EDT
                                MeanGene-3334839

                                What standard of living are you talking about when you say "middle class"? Our middle class today has luxuries practically unheard of even as recently as the 1970's.

                                Cell phones? Not in the 1970's. Cordless phones were a rarity. Touch tone was new tech.

                                Home computers? Not in the 1970's. Only the richest folks had Apple II and Commodore 64.

                                Cable TV? Not in the 1970's. You had ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. Maybe. If you lived in a big city.

                                1970 iPods were lousy transistor radios, 1970 cars got 12 MPG, 1970 video games made PONG look like state of the art (it actually was) and 1970 text messaging required postage.

                                If our standard of living is going down then I've gotta say I ain't seeing it.

                                • 2 votes
                                #26.1 - Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:49 AM EDT
                                Poorworkingman

                                I for one don't mind being classified as one of the 1970's middle class if you could help turning back the time, sir. Would you please, please.

                                • 1 vote
                                #26.2 - Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:40 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                no internet now

                                Note that, indeed, Romney's pic looks as if his mitts are getting ready to shape mashed potatoes into a scale model of the Devil's Tower. "Must be part of his secret CE3K tax plan", according to Rick Perry.

                                "Human Americans deserve a taxation system that is low, on the ground, and not up, up in the sky like some damn E.T.", Gov. Perry remarked while his unveiling his tax plan recently, titled Rick's Really Super Grate Tax Plan for Real Humans.

                                "They should be able to file their taxes on a 'Jesus is Lord' postcard insteaduh ridin' around like jackasses on some bike across the moon."

                                  Reply#27 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:25 PM EDT
                                  OomYaaqub

                                  Didn't Gov. Jerry Brown aka Gov. Moonbeam also say we ought to be able to file our taxes on a postcard back in the day?

                                    #27.1 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:27 PM EDT
                                    rational thought-3748544

                                    But he wasn't advocating a flat tax. You've got nothing to support your position.

                                    • 4 votes
                                    #27.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:40 PM EDT
                                    OomYaaqub

                                    actually, he was.

                                      #27.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:16 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                      Leave a Comment:
                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                      FUN STUFF:
                                      • Leaderboard |
                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                      • The Greenhouse |
                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                      • Code of Honor |
                                      • Company Info |
                                      • Contact Us |
                                      • Jobs |
                                      • User Agreement |
                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                      • About our ads
                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com