Jack Cafferty Discusses the Largest Tax Hike in History on CNN

[getabrainasshole]

for the unemployed all 9 million, you not need worry as you don't and won't have a job until the communists are out of office!

[jebril]

Lol Wolf...we're not kidding that was a serious answer....

[lawber]

I am sure it will not be much longer and we will not be able to make comments on these articles. Obama and Google think they haver the right to control everything we do, see, or, read

Its scary we are allowing these guys to do this.

[pebarefoot]

Did anybody really believe Obama when he told us taxs weren't going to go up?

[littlebier8]

stop spending so much of our money! zero out all IRS regulations except a 15% flat tax on personal incomes and a 20% flat tax on businesses. let people opt out of social security. cut all medicare benefits for the wealthy. end the insurance mandate. cut discretionary spending in half. end both wars and slash the pentagon's budget in half. phase out all foreign aid. sell off all government shares of banks and auto companies. reel in the federal reserve. and then on january 2nd...

[megarational]

@littlebier8 A flat tax is a godsend to the rich. It's not income but discretionary income that determines the ability to build wealth. Compared to a progressive tax, a flat tax gives those at higher incomes not only a much higher discretionary income in real terms increase, but also as a percentage of income.

It has always been easier for a wealthy person to become far wealthier than it has been for the average working citizen to become wealthy. A flat tax greatly increases that situation. .

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational Flat tax does look like the only option...In my uneducated opinion if it removes the ability for the yahoo's in Congress to tax us to death...it has my vote!!

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 It does not remove the ability of Congress to increase taxes. What it does do, since a flat tax is more visible & politically sensitive, is increase the propensity to adopt new taxes in the form of "fines, fees, so-called user fees, levies, duties, and all manner of regressive forms of increasing revenues while making no consideration of ability to pay.

A flat tax system is in fact a very regressive revenue system, & people at all incomes have to make up for the loss of revenue.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational It should be instigated in such a way to remove Congress's ability to raise any more taxes in my humble opinion. My reasoning here is that the tax base would naturally increase A) by the number of legal immigrants and legal immigration into the country. B) by the tax base itself including everyone where 50% currently do not pay income taxes etc. Instead of only taxing 'rich' people(that's a laugh) it requires everyone to pay the same % equally. It's an idea who's time has come!

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 There is a long, very long, answer to your wish.

A short reply that answer that makes the long answer unnecessary: good luck ever getting Congress ever to agree to enact legislation that removes their ability to add or increase taxes. Won't happen.

As for illegal immigrants, the no. of jobs available doesn't increase just because of more illegal immigration.

What does increase is the cost of social programs, law enforcement, emergency room medical treatment etc.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational Hmmm, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning, or I didn't orate it properly. However, Congress will NEVER do anything removing power or money from themselves, this is a given. President Reagan said it best: "The closest thing we will ever see to immortality is a government program". My intent was this: By using a flat tax properly EVERYONE is taxed equally where the current tax system is completely biased and unfair. We have 15% paying 85% of taxes, 30% paying 15% taxes.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational And the remainder literally pay no income taxes at all. These numbers are from the IRS web site of course. Now if the flat tax were initiated where everyone was taxed at an equal rate, let's say 5% (random number) then we would see the coffers over flow more so than is we only taxed the 15% more heavily. The immigration part really served no purpose in my thoughts previously. Non-citizens would be taxed at a higher rate unless it were a consumption tax. I know we can go on & on!!

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 You have just repeated the stats you hear from proponents of a flat tax. What those proponents never tell you is the other stats that shed light on the truth.

Read the next 4 or 5 comments and perhaps you will begin to see why a flat tax is fought for by the wealthy and by those who fall for the one-sided statistics and one-sided arguments they keep repeating.

see next...

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational Actually I have never heard or read stats from flat tax proponents....do you have an issue with me thinking for myself?

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165

I would love for you to think for yourself. I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

I have seen your stats quoted over and over by Rand Paul, Ron Paul, by interviews on Fox Fiction, & from Beck & Limbaugh, & from right wing publications.

No one believes for one second that you "thought them up by yourself" or researched the tax department or census reports.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 The last census, like the one before it, confirms that the portion of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the families at the top end increased and the portion of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the middle and lower class continues to decrease.

In other words, system based redistribution of the wealth has been occurring on a seemingly unstoppable course formany years.

Right now in America the top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 95% percent combined.

read next comment

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 The U.S. has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation, & it continues to grow. Prominent economists including Alan Greenspan warned that the widening U.S. rich-poor gap is a prob. that could undermine and destabilize the U.S. economy and standard of living stating: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US pop. has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself".

see next...

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Those who push for a flat tax instead of progressive tax use 6 standard “arguments”:

- A flat tax is simpler than a progressive tax

- A progressive tax results in “bracket creep”.

- Governments have a habit of “tweaking” the brackets to get more revenue.

- A flat tax is fairer than a progressive tax system.

- The “laffer curve” suggests that at some point increasing the tax rate can result in lower tax revenue because there is more incentive to avoid taxes.

cont'd next...

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 standard "flat tax" arguments cont'd:

- A progressive tax system results in people moving to other countries, and taking their investment capital with them. It is also a detriment to attracting talented individuals

- A flat tax may benefit most those at higher incomes, however “…some of the higher-income people are the people that are more likely to be generating significant revenue by their economic decisions and activities”.

see next...

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165

For each of those flat tax arguments there are facts which disprove it, and/or counter arguments that are more compelling and better supported.

I simply don't want to spend the time educating you by addressing every one of those arguments, though I could do so.

So I'll just make a few more comments on the flat tax argument that caught your fancy and sucked you in - that a flat tax is fairer.

see next comment...

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational I highly doubt you will educate me on any portion of the tax code for one, There is nothing that "sucks anyone in" about the flat tax...it is basic intelligence that the need for one exists.

I can see now that you are quite liberal by your arguments, If I am wrong then you are a progressive.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 I wondered how long it would be before you took refuge in just chucking around labels.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 I already pointed out that even the progressive tax has not stopped the trend toward the increasing concentration of the nations total wealth at the top end.

A flat tax results in a massive loss of tax revenue. Gov't makes up for that by a) increasing the flat tax rate - (net effect is rich still pay less tax than before & middle class pays more) and b) hidden taxes, fines, fees, levies, etc. which tend to ignore ability to pay and in effect makes the tax system more regressive.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Further to you point, the wealthy and powerful will always have the clout to generate loopholes and ways of hiding income that the ordinary working stiff will never be able to take advantage of. It's not a level playing field and never will be, that's true of virtually every nation..

One reason for that is the political system, the dependence on campaign financing, and the power of deep pockets to saturate the media with self-serving & deceptive propaganda.

see next

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Another thing to keep in mind. Extremely high incomes often do not reflect hard work, but instead are made possible due to ownership of capital resources. So it's easier for the wealthy to get wealthier than for the person of average income to become wealthy. Also, extremely high incomes are often only possible through the efforts of large numbers of employees working at drastically lower wages. Tax policy should reward work more than wealth, and a flat tax does just the opposite.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Now, I listed the standard flat tax arguments, & have spent several comments without even finishing shedding light on the problems and inadequacies of even the one argument you tried to use.

i simply don't wish to spend more time with you now.

Maybe you should start researching the issue, not just listen to the talking points of those who have a vested interest in a flat tax.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational Anyhoo, thanks for the sort of debate, we will get there soon enough because the problem with spending others money is sooner or later they run out of it.

Peace Brother!!

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 I will just reemphasize one point that is easily overlooked. A flat tax, compared to a progressive tax, means that the rich have a higher disposable income not only in absolute terms, BUT ALSO AS A % OF GROSS INCOME.

Do the math. Assume any fixed sum for reasonable cost of living. (Use $30K per yr or any figure you want,) Now, using any flat tax rate, compare the

% of gross income that is disposable(after tax & cost of living) for any low income compared to any higher income.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 I should also mention there is one other important area that has to be considered critically relevant to your one flat tax argument. The whole issue of what stimulates the economy more, tax cuts for the rich, or targeted social programs. It gets into the whole area of what stimulates demand more, and how demand affects the economy, the deficit, jobs, and everyone's incomes. As you can imagine, the space needed is about as much as all of my previous comments.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational Have you gone to the IRS web site and verified the data I provided to you? 50% pay no income tax. The IRS is not posting artificial data, it is the truth. Why should, let's say I, pay 2x the taxes because I work 60 hours a week and good old Billy over there cannot wait to stop at 40 hours, if that? The logic of your argument is skewed by the assumption that people who make more aren't paying their fair share...it is the 50% who are not paying their fair share...the liberal way.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Your example demonstrates a usual misconception.

Even with a progressive tax syst. a 20 hr/wk difference, assuming anything like a comparable wage, should normally make little or no difference in the applicable tax rate.

Where significant differences come in is between incomes, for example, of $50K per year and $50 million per year.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 One more relevant point about your contention that we should just tax those at lower incomes more, without ever understanding the effect that would have on demand and therefor jobs, the deficit, & the economy, not to mention the hardships that would cause in human terms.

[Drumboy5165]

@megarational If you read carefully what I stated is that everyone should be taxed equally. Why are you so bent on taxing people who make more at a higher rate? Seriously? This is basic common sense and logic that dictates equality. The Constitution claims equality for everyone here, except if you make more that Billy the couch potatoe over there. Then you have to pay more so he doesn't pay at all.

[megarational]

@Drumboy5165 Holy shit! Where have you been during this discussion?

Go do some research on the "flat tax v/s progressive tax" issue.

I will waste no more time on you.

[megarational]

@littlebier8

Cut medicare benefits for the wealthy - agreed.

Also cut seniors pensions for the wealthy.

RE: ending the insurance mandate - no, unless you implement a single payer system that would be far more efficient & go a long way to solving the deficit.

End both wars: That's the plan.

Slash the pentagon's deficit in half? Well, try anyway.

End foreign aid? Most of it.

Sell off gov't shares of banks & auto co.'s? That's already the goal. Meanwhile they are paying back the bailouts.

[megarational]

@littlebier8 Want a "radical" improvement? Amalgamate States to reduce the total number from 50 down to, say, 30.

That would cut by almost half the duplication of state bureaucracies & number of politicians at the trough.

It would also end many of the hassles citizens face when traveling/working/moving from one State to another.

[littlebier8]

@megarational That makes no sense. Ignoring that fact that there is no legal way to "merge" states, creating bigger bureaucracies never eliminates waste. The bigger the budget and constituency of a bureaucratic agency, the more waste, fraud, abuse, and red tape that is created. Compare your home state's welfare program to Medicare, for instance. Unless you live in an extremely corrupt state, the odds are that it is run more efficiently than the national bureaucracy.

[megarational]

@littlebier8 I have been reading some "studies" on the effectiveness of consolidation, & agree that consolidation in general does not mean reduced costs.

I think we have a different frame of reference in mind. In some things leaving decisions to a local level makes sense. It's too complicated to argue on the basis of generalities, so I'll drop it.

Nonetheless, don't people find it a bit annoying to move only a short distance, & have to change drivers' licenses, health care etc?