USA Today: Bush's tax cuts benefit all income levels; AMT must be fixed

I do not know that the AMT itself is all that bad.

Those that benefit more from a free society should carry more of the burden than those that cannot benefit as much. Or said differently, why did my boss buy himself a hummer as a tax write off instead of giving me a pay raise?

Now that was a slap in the face . . . and so often the new 'rich' do not see the arrogance of what they do . . .

OK editorial over ...

:saint:

 

Um ... because it's his money?

Why did you go out to eat instead of sending me that money so I could go out to eat?

 

The AMT is starting to reach people with incomes that it was never intended to affect. The Congress needs to raise the point at which it kicks in.

 

The idea of the AMT is good, it is just that the amounts should have been raised every year with inflation.

Of course a flat tax or the fair tax bill would also solve these problems.

 

IMHO. Flat tax is wrong. IMHO. It is the same attitude as opening up American borders so that the really rich can use poor foreign labor to make them even richer (competitive in the market place). We should be proud of paying our fellow Americans a living wage instead of bragging about how we can use 'loopholes' to buy gas guzzlers with tax payer dollars. IMHO that kind of arrogance is a sin.

The wealthy should be proud of their opportunity to live in a country that allows them the freedoms necessary to become among the richest in the world - and still be barely in the American upper-class.

Real wages have reduced drastically since the 1980's and the wealthy have gotten much richer . . . even while they have had champions trying to claim that the taxes that they are paying are 'too much'.

If the taxes were 'too much' then they would not have doubled their portion of the American wealth over the last 3 decades while barely paying more in taxes . . . (I forget what the increase of their taxes burden was, but it was noticibly less than the 100% that their wealth increase was).

* All data (besides the gas guzzler) was derived from historic IRS tax data . . . it has been awhile since I crunched the data, but it was an eye opener that workers (botom 40%) earn significantly less today and the wealthy (top 20%) earn significantly more today than was the case 3 decades ago.

 

The AMT is atrocious.

I do favor a graduated income tax system, but I'd live with a flat tax system that kicked in after about 15-20k.

EDIT: I just read up on the FairTax--I'd be in favor of that if we could ever get it.

 

There is no reason why the wealthy should serve less in the military AND not carry their fair share of taxes.

I did not serve with any of that in mind. I served because of patriotism. But, it is not fair to those that are willing to pay in blood when those that make so much do not even want to pay in green backs IMHO.

Flat tax is evil IMHO.

 

Hyperbole has ruined political and public policy discourse in the United States.

 

Why should you pay more for something simply because you have more?

 

Read up on this and get back to us:

http://www.fairtax.org

What a splendid idea.

The AMT, if not dealt with, will become a confiscatory nightmare for our middle class.

Myth-busting time: The rich do pay their fair share of taxes--and more.

You need to put a source to this...I believe you're way, way off.

Excessive taxation strikes at the heart of our great nation: What gives the government the right to take what you have earned, and give it to someone else? There are things that are important enough to qualify--but not nearly as much as what happens.

Our current tax system punishes hard work and rewards laziness. Furthermore, its complexity costs us billions of dollars and man-hours in compliance to a code that even its authors cannot decipher.

And I'm in the bottom rung of the middle class.

 

This clearly explains why "trickle down" doesn't work, and is still voodoo economics.

 

I gave a source . . . read up on it and get back to me.

 

I agree with hyperbole being dangerous.

But, the USA was not founded to make rich people free. The USA was founded to make citizens* free. Equality does not mean that you give an elitist group the opportunity to get 'really rich' and hope that it trickles down.

Nor, do I believe that welfare has done what it was supposed to.

But, somewhere in the middle, Americans have the right and God given right it is, to live, work, and play under the freedom and protection of a greater society.

And in a greater society someone has to pay the bills. Since the really rich have decided to keep more of that money for themselves and less available trickle down money for the poorer Americans so that they can afford a greater load - in my opinion they have voted for themselves to carry a greater 'share' of the burden.

No - I do not believe in the liberal agenda that allows their really rich to hide their money in tax sheltered foundations . . . Nor do I believe in the conservative agenda that we should allow the wealthy to hide their money from taxation.

Taxation should be relative - so that the poor are not down trodden and the wealthy are allowed the privileges that their wealth can buy.

But, no where do I see room to let people pay less than their share. In 1980, an oil worker earned 60 - 100k (todays money) as a skilled laborer. . . that just does not happen that way today.

* Yes, I am ashamed that it took decades and a 'civil war' to extend that to all citizens.

 

Pastor Larry,
The premise of your statement is correct to me. We are all very blessed to be born in this country. While there are some who benefit wrongly or without effort, for the most part, we all make our own way by how hard we work and how much we learn. What a great country to live in for the opportunities we all have. So, the question comes to my mind, why should you, me or anyone else subsidize those who are not willing to work or work hard.

I am middle class, maybe even lower middle class, and what I make is from what I do. Why should someone who was smart enough to make more in this world pay for the fact I or anyone else was not.

There will always be those who inherit riches from a family, people like lawyers, actors etc that are paid way more than they are worth, but for the most part, we all are where God has put us, and where our efforts took us.

God bless you and your ministry.

 

Perhaps you can "clearly explain" how you got this out of my statement.

 

But this simply isn't true. All of the rich, and most of the middle class and poor, are invested to at least some degree in the stock market, where their money is creating jobs, research and development, providing capital to build factories and manufacture products, etc.

When your boss goes and buys a new car, he is not keeping money for himself. He is contributing to the employment of thousands of people in many industries who made that car from the ground up. He is helping to employ engineers, who use pencils and paper, sit at desks, use computers and software, lighted by lights and heated and cooled, all using labor that makes less than you do, in most cases. He sends that model and plans to people who will retool the machine lines to build it. People assemble all the steel , bolt and nuts, welding supplies, tools, hard hats, shoes and boots, all made by people who are making a paycheck. People build the cars, paint them, transport them, prep them, and sell them.

So your boss, when he spends his money on a car is using that money to employ people.

If you are concerned about the wages of employees, why not start your own company and set the wages for your employees? I think employers tend to pay the wages that it takes to get the work done. If you want a raise, then make yourself more valuable. Show your boss why you are more valuable to him than the car.

Why not?

But the problem is that the poor are getting the privileges that the wealthy have bought.

The economy is macro, not micro. And that is what too many forget.

I think a use tax, or a VAT, would be the most fair tax. That way, people are taxed on what they consume. Income tax is not a good idea. Then the rich are paying more than the poor, and doing so because they choose to buy things and live a certain lifestyle.

 

Easy. The idea of "trickle down economics" is that business owners will reinvest their tax cuts into the business, creating more jobs. But instead they spend the money on Hummers and other stuff. The trickle down never happens. You stated it is their money to spend. That points out why it doesn't work.

 

I think you perhaps misunderstand trickle down. Trickle down means that people who have money use it on things that create jobs (or at least pay for jobs), whether in the company they own, or in teh things that they buy. I don't think it is only in the company, though that is a part of it.

If people with money didn't buy luxury cars, then the people who make luxury cars would be unemployed. If people with money didn't buy luxury homes, then people who build them would be unemployed. Trickle down works when the guy making 30K stops and buys a slushee at 7-11 from some teenager making the minimum. It works when some guy making 50K pays some teenager $20 a week to cut his lawn in the summer.

And if government takes the money, then it gets wasted.

So trickle down does work.

 

The fair tax is the fairest tax of all, but it reduces class warfare and makes it difficult for people to whine about their bosses buying Hummers:

Fair Tax

Click the link, eh.

And Larry's right: Why should someone be forced to pay more for something simply because they have more money?

If you don't like your boss buying that Hummer instead of you, why not invest some of your own money and massive amounts of time into starting your own company? Then, if you are successful you can decide whether to buy a new car or give your employees raises. Don't forget, though, if you give them a raise, you're stuck with it, even if the business takes a downturn!