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.

[adios]

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.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

What's the deal with reviving old threads?

[Olof]

[ 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!"

[lastchance]

Amtrak is relatively worthless.

SS/Medicare/Medicaid needs to be cut.

Farm subsidies = welfare.

Programs that are very clearly neutral EV at best.

[XxGodJrxX]

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]

[BCPVP]

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

[CORed]

[ 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.

[XxGodJrxX]

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.