Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

38% income tax, sales tax, not to mention that I just paid $400 to renew registrations at the DMV. Does it really cost this much to keep the machine going?

Indy

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

No- it costs way more.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

It shouldn't cost this much, we just waste to much money.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

I'll give this a political slant. It's fairly obvious to me that Democrats are going to use the budget deficit as a campaign issue and use their tired old class warfare tactics to attack the Bush 2003 tax cuts and advocate higher taxes in 2006 as way to shore up the budget deficit and repeal the "irresponsible' 2003 tax cuts. If taxes are indeed not too high the Democrats will have a winning issue. Some of opined on this forum that the Democrats stance on taxes is not detrimental to their election chances. I couldn't disagree more. The Democrats say they only want to raise taxes on the rich. Apparently the Democrats definition of rich is a household making $200,000 plus a year. That isn't my definition of being rich and I'm going to guess that most people don't see it that way either. And FWIW IMO most people realize that when you go down the path of raising taxes to shore up a budget deficit that it's a slippery slope and that somehow politicians find a way to spend that money on a lot of "pork." There's a simple answer to the budget deficit "problem" which IMO is way overhyped. Sustained economic growth and a reduction in government spending and the biggest ticket spending items are entitlements. Medicare-medicaid spending is growing at an alarming rate (last time I looked twice as fast as economic growth) and Social Security will be running in the red in 10 years or so. With the aging "baby boomers" population segment, entitlement spending will bring about some severe budget deficits if not corrected. It will take a whole lot more than repealing the Bush tax cuts to shore up entitlement spending.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW IMO most people realize that when you go down the path of raising taxes to shore up a budget deficit that it's a slippery slope

[/ QUOTE ]

Keynes might disagree. Also, 'IMO' and 'most people realize' don't really make sense together. In your opinion most people realize something? Where does this opinion come from?

And I think the social security issue has been put to rest. I'll leave you with a quote, do with it what you will:

"The official story is that the Baby Boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true.

But what happened to the Baby Boomers when they were zero to 20? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then."

Sounds like a good point to me.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

nice post man. I'll come right out and say that fiscally I am a republican (socially I'm mixed because I dont like guns and really dont care what gay people wanna do). Take the Bureau of motor vehicles. I went in there the other day and watched the lady at the cash register just churning out the cash. Seriously, after paying $400 before leaving to register a car, a boat, and boat trailer I really felt like selling everything I owed and just quit working. Really, what could they possibly be doing with that much $? These are the laziest employees I've ever seen by the way. I gotta believe that we can cut spending and put more $ in the pockets of the american people. And please stop using the excuse that the Europeans pay more tax and we are lucky. We are not the EU, we never will be, and its not a fair comparison. In the EU the gov. wipes the citizens asses and that is very unamerican.

Indy

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Is that 38% state + federal?

Anyways, I think the problem isn't so much that the tax rates are too high, but that there are too many stupid deductions. For example, the mortage interest deduction, in addition to costing the Treasury a ton of revenue, also lead to an economically disastrous misallocation of funds. I'm not extremely well versed in the tax law, but I bet there are also some deductions that should be erased for the top bracket, because they make less sense when applied to the rich.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keynes might disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why because Keynes would look askance at cutting government spending during a period of economic growth?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, 'IMO' and 'most people realize' don't really make sense together. In your opinion most people realize something? Where does this opinion come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same place where your opinions come from.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think the social security issue has been put to rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]
"The official story is that the Baby Boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true.

But what happened to the Baby Boomers when they were zero to 20? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then."

Sounds like a good point to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1950 16 workers supported one Social Security recipient. Today it takes 3 workers to support each recipient. By 2030 it will be 2 workers to support each recipient given that there are no changes made to the system. The ratio of retirees to new workers coming into the system will rise due to the size of the "baby boomers" population segment reaching retirment age. It's projected that Social Security will be running a deficit in ten years. What's been settled? I won't be able to get back to this thread until later but I'd really like to know what you think has been settled and how it has been settled.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

So everyone in the top bracket is rich? Also what is income really? We've been over this many times on the forum but the problem with an income tax is that the income earner base is very diverse and thus defining income for all income earners is an impossible task and IMO is the breeding ground for special interest groups. If income is just money earned on a W-2 then isn't the standard deduction costing the government tons of money as well? Why have the standard deduction?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll come right out and say that fiscally I am a republican

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure about that?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blo...y_Spending.jpg

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Defining income is hard, but I don't think you can just write it off as an impossible task. Just takes some effort.

My understanding of the standard deduction was that it was just there to save people the time (and cost) of itemizing.

In any case, my main point was that people in the top bracket should have fewer deductions. Not because they're all "rich" by whatever definition, but because the utility of the behavior encouraged by a lot of deductions is less for the wealthy. (obviously, some deductions, like the charitable giving one, are MORE effective for high-income taxpayers. keep those.) For example, the mortgage interest payment deduction for people making 200,000/year. Do we really feel the need to subsidize home ownership for these people? Healthcare costs? Maybe it's a good thing that we'd like to do, but the cost is the same as or higher than the same tax subsidy to a poorer person who needs it more. At some level of wealth, the cost is going to outweight the benefit.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Yes, they are way too high. Add up all the little fees and taxes I'd be surprised if it doesn't exceed 50%.

We've dumped tea in the harbor for less.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll come right out and say that fiscally I am a republican

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure about that?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blo...y_Spending.jpg

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time the government spends a dollar we are being taxed. Now ask yourself if taxes were really cut, or did we just get interest added to our tax bill?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Not always true... local governments own utility companies that charge based on usage. They spend money to maintain equipment, build new water papers, etc... None of this is tax. Also, even the Post Office and Amtrak, only a portion of what they spend is coming from taxes or a debt (although any is too much imho).

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

We've been over this ground quite a bit before, so just this:

Highest marginal tax rate in 2005 is 35%, not 38%. And you have to make $326,450 to pay that. And you pay it on only that portion of your income that exceeds $326,450.

So, for example, if you make $350,000, 35% would be $122,500. But you don't pay $122,500. If you're married and filing jointly, you pay $102,240, which works out to 29.2%.

That still might be too high (or too low) depending on your politics, but this just points out that when you're in the 35% bracket, that doesn't mean you pay 35% federal income tax on all your income.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]
That is probably the better question.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

EDIT: This is in response to Grey's graph post.

1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

2) As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), within the context of the national economy as a whole, the highest deficit was run during fiscal year 1943 at over 30% of GDP, whereas deficits during the 1980s reached 5-6% of GDP and the present projected deficit for 2005 is 2.9% of GDP, close to the post-World War II average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit

3) Avoiding the deficit would have been nearly impossible for Bush. The economy retracted immediately when he entered office which made tax revenue drop.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them, except for:

1) Police
2) Small reserve military
3) Judiciary

Then we can talk about privatizing the preceding three as well.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them, except for:

1) Police
2) Small reserve military
3) Judiciary

Then we can talk about privatizing the preceding three as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think that this is realistic for a country this size?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them, except for:

1) Police
2) Small reserve military
3) Judiciary

Then we can talk about privatizing the preceding three as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think that this is realistic for a country this size?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "size" but rather of the dominant political philosophy.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them, except for:

1) Police
2) Small reserve military
3) Judiciary

Then we can talk about privatizing the preceding three as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think that this is realistic for a country this size?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "size" but rather of the dominant political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
So in your mind all of these functions can be carried out by private institutions or individual citizens?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone else's.


q/q

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What government functions/services are people willing to have cut back (or eliminated) in order for taxes to be lowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone else's.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

ding ding ding

Here's the correct answer folks

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

In general we should have lower overall rates and fewer deductions. The government shouldn't prode people into engaging in certain activities at any economic level.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
38% income tax, sales tax, not to mention that I just paid $400 to renew registrations at the DMV. Does it really cost this much to keep the machine going?

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it does cost that much to build bridges to nowhere and to pay farms billions to destroy food and other wasteful nonsese.

natedogg

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]All spending must originate in the House of Representatives- so that's over 200 Republicans. It's hardly a problem confined to one man.

I'm not saying Republicans spend more than Democrats, but it also can't be said that Democrats spend more than Republicans. All that changes (slightly) between the two is what the money gets spent on.

The most important factor in cutting government spending is having the different branches controlled by different political parties. A Republican Congress with a Democratic President wouldn't spend that much. Same with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. But when the same party has both... watch out.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

only for the middle class

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
38% income tax, sales tax, not to mention that I just paid $400 to renew registrations at the DMV. Does it really cost this much to keep the machine going?

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

I've not read this thread and don't intend to.

My taxes are too high.

I've never met anyone who felt theirs are too low.

Anyone who thinks taxes are too low has never sat down and tried to follow the insane trail of just exactly what is taxed and to what extent.

Anyone who thinks their taxes are too low has my permission to cough up whatever the hell they think their proper rate should be. I encourage them to convince their like-minded friends to do the same.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]

My taxes are too high.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. All the prices people charge me are too high. The Lexus dealer should be charging me $10.00 for an RX330. Let them make it up by charging others more.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Ok fair enough your points are well taken and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. However, I don't think that the standard deduction exists for the reason you say it does. From the following link:

16th Amendment and Income Tax

Modern interpretation

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth - whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions - are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption (as it has for things like gifts, bequests, scholarships, and alimony).

Some lower courts have ruled that the Amendment authorized unapportioned direct taxes on income. However, the Supreme Court has always said that all income taxes are indirect.

Let's take a hypothetical but a fairly common situation. A person gets paid by an employer and receives a W-2 at the end of the year. That person commutes each day to his/her place of employment and incurs expenses for maintaining their employment. Clearly there are expenses that would not be incurred if that person was not working. The standard deduction is intended to in part cover those expenses. If we expand other necessary expenses to shelter, food and clothing (is there any argument that all people need these things?) then I think that a clear argument can be made that a certain level of income is needed just to purchase the necessities of life and that this income is not an "accession to wealth." Does the standard deduction cover all of these expenses? Of course not and this has been recognized by more than a few people. My understanding of this is the foundation of the Steve Forbes tax plan. Clearly there should be deductions for the basic necessities of life. Where to draw the line is debatable but it isn't at the level of the standard deduction for a family of 4 lets say.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]


1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.



[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the graph again. The deficit increases significantly during the Ford, Reagan and both Bush terms. The deficit decreases during Carter's and Clinton's. Fiscally Republican seems to mean that you like to run up a huge deficit, then a Democrat comes along and fixes the mess. Maybe Republicans are not as conservative as they advertise.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

What's the deal with reviving old threads?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My taxes are too high.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. All the prices people charge me are too high. The Lexus dealer should be charging me $10.00 for an RX330. Let them make it up by charging others more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're trying to be sarcastic, but doesn't what you write above actually serve better to illustrate what those who support big government and progressive taxes are saying?

"Bo-hoo, I can't afford treatment for my lung cancer. The government should take money by force from people who weren't stupid enough to spend it on cigarettes instead of health insurance!"

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Amtrak is relatively worthless.

SS/Medicare/Medicaid needs to be cut.

Farm subsidies = welfare.

Programs that are very clearly neutral EV at best.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

That's weird, this thread was highlighted as new and on the first page when I read it. Maybe SOMEBODY wanted me to read it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

Ninja bumping in Politics? Is P.Dirty infiltrating our forum now?

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.



[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the graph again. The deficit increases significantly during the Ford, Reagan and both Bush terms. The deficit decreases during Carter's and Clinton's. Fiscally Republican seems to mean that you like to run up a huge deficit, then a Democrat comes along and fixes the mess. Maybe Republicans are not as conservative as they advertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's over-simplifying things. You have to consider who controls Congress. Congress is who actually passes appropriations and tax laws. During Ford's, most of Reagan's and Daddy Bush's terms, Democrats controlled Congress. During most of Clinton's term, Republicans controlled the HR, Democrats the Senate. During Dubbya's term, Republicans cotrolled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. It would seem that a Democratic president and a Republican Congress might be the best combination for promoting fical responsibility. Besides, I don't know what the Republican Party stands for any more, but fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to be something they are much concerned with. It seems they can say no to a Democratic president, but not to a Republican who can outspend any liberal Democrat.

Re: Aren\'t taxes just too high?
 

The President may not pass legislation, but presidents still play a very large role in the deficit and in what gets passed in Congress. The President submits a budget, and in the grand scheme of things, is the originator of most major programs that later get passed in Congress. Republicans are suppossed to be the party that cuts taxes and cuts spending, but in reality, they cut taxes and increase spending. Most of those cuts in taxes and increases in spending comes from the President.

You may be right that Republican Congress + Democratic President = less deficit. On the other hand, I do remember balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit was one of Clinton's main issues.