Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I MIGHT be able to get on board with taxing the "rich" a slightly higher percentage IF the government actually held all Americans accountable and made everyone pay their taxes. However, I have a real problem increasing percentages for some people when nearly half the people in this country don't pay their taxes at all.

This is an interesting website that explains that statistic which gets tossed around a lot.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

From that web site:
Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

Originally Posted by DGTess

I disagree ... I think EVERYONE should pay the same *percentage* - and that means the wealthy are going to be paying significantly more. What needs to happen is to cut out every loophole and most deductions. WHY should the government give you a tax break to buy a house or have kids? WHY give tax breaks for not farming, or for "being a good little boy" according to some politician's definition. (However, EVERY tax credit that was discussed during debates last year was retained in the tax code.)

I have spent most of my career in government. There are LOTS of places that can be cut, but leaders are promoted based on increasing their influence -- money and people. You don't get ahead by cutting your budget or doing more with less.

I agree with you on the tax breaks for NOT farming. I do think that you need to provide deductions for kids and home mortgage interest. $250,000.00 for a single person is very different than $250,000.00 for a family of 4. If you eliminate kids, then are you eliminating spouses who are not working also? Why would you NOT use household income per capita and instead only count income per person who is working? That doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, a lot more people would not be able to afford a house if the mortgage interest deductions were eliminated. The housing market is plenty unstable already. We don't need to add to that problem at this point in its very slow recovery.

The real problem is that the very rich have all kinds of loopholes and the poor have none. Because of those loopholes, they typically pay a lower percentage than the middle class families do.

I agree with AOII Angel. The higher percentage doesn't affect the wealthy as it does those who make much less.

DGTess: Someone should benefit from something to which they don't contribute because we take care of each other as human beings. As noted above, most who do not contribute are a) Students who WILL contribute someday, b) the elderly, who DID contribute for many years and c) the disabled, who we should take care of because we are moral human beings, not "survival of the fittest" monsters.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I agree with you on the tax breaks for NOT farming. I do think that you need to provide deductions for kids and home mortgage interest. $250,000.00 for a single person is very different than $250,000.00 for a family of 4. If you eliminate kids, then are you eliminating spouses who are not working also? Why would you NOT use household income per capita and instead only count income per person who is working? That doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, a lot more people would not be able to afford a house if the mortgage interest deductions were eliminated. The housing market is plenty unstable already. We don't need to add to that problem at this point in its very slow recovery.
.

I agree with your statement about income being different for a family of four vs. a single person.

I also think that cost of living needs to be taken into account. For instance, my house in Southern Illinois (a modest, two story home) would be probably four times as expensive in somewhere such as San Francisco or Chicago. My grandparents, who live in a Chicago suburb, have a smaller house than us and paid over triple than what we did. $250,000 is a lot different for a family living in an area such as Southern Illinois and a family living in a big city or expensive area.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I agree with you on the tax breaks for NOT farming. I do think that you need to provide deductions for kids and home mortgage interest. $250,000.00 for a single person is very different than $250,000.00 for a family of 4. If you eliminate kids, then are you eliminating spouses who are not working also? Why would you NOT use household income per capita and instead only count income per person who is working? That doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, a lot more people would not be able to afford a house if the mortgage interest deductions were eliminated. The housing market is plenty unstable already. We don't need to add to that problem at this point in its very slow recovery.

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

On principle, I agree, but it would require a very slow phase-out, and CERTAINLY not right now, while the housing market is what it is.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Anyway, life may indeed not be fair, but there can be consequences to taxing those with lower income to the point that they can't pay for essentials.

Is it preferable to have structured rates that encourage more self-sufficiency for those with lower incomes?

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.

Originally Posted by DGTess

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

I'm of the mindset that if it is good for society for as a whole, I'm willing to ante up more money to pay for it. That would include education, defense, health care, roads/transportation, medical research, etc. I do feel like there is a lot of waste in our government but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. We all heard reports of the government paying outrageous amounts for toilet seats, for example. I do think there is too much wealth in this country to tolerate people dying for lack of health insurance, lack of food, lack of heat or shelter... in short, lack of compassion. I know people who work the system and I know people who need help but can't get it from anywhere. I can't even believe they haven't approved spending to help the people suffering damage from Sandy, for example.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.



Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

It is family income, no doubt. The wage earner, however, CHOSE to marry and/or have a family. Why should the government validate or reward that choice?

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

OK, we disagree.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

I don't think it's corruption.

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DGTess

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

I've worked for two major private corporations, and it's my experience that these things are rampant in the private sector as well. I have never worked in government, so I can't do a side-by-side comparison, but I think a lot of the stereotypes about bad management, laziness, etc. in the government sector are far from absent just because there is a profit motive.