Tax Day Wish: Prophetic Voices on Taxes

I've always had this thought.. Why pay taxes when we live in a world that God gave us for free!

Whatever happened to lowering taxes for ALL people -- not just the wealthy or large businesses. Most of the "we need lower taxes" crowd only want taxes to be lowered for the wealthy. This is the theory behind "trickle-down" economics where tax breaks for the wealthy and large businesses is supposed to "trickle down" to regular people. In reality, most of these tax breaks stayed right into the pockets of the OEOs and others who got the tax breaks.

There would be no tax problem whatsoever if everyone paid their fair share. It is estimated that some $100 Billion in revenue is lost every year because it is
hidden offshore by tax avoidance traitors. The beneficiaries are banks in Switzerland, Dubai, and the Caymans --- the losers are the American people.

"A new study that I co-authored, "Reversing the Great Tax Shift," examines the declining percentage of taxes paid by the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers."
--Does it also discuss the increasing percentage of all taxes that the wealthy have been paying? The top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes, and the top 10% pays 70% of all federal income taxes. Let's start with those facts, please.

"Edgar Bronfman, former chair of the World Jewish Federation, is one of those who has called on President Obama to "Raise My Taxes" and go forth with his campaign promise to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000."
--He can raise his own taxes, can't he? I mean if government is the vessel of charity these people long for, can't you just opt to pay more in taxes each year? What's stopping you from sending extra money to the IRS each year?

I have never heard anyone on the left argue for what a 'moral tax rate' would be. Would it be 60% of those making $250k or more per year? 70%? 90%? Why not 100%? Should those making under $250k pay no taxes at all? 10%? Where do you come up with these figures? What constitutes a moral number? Surely Plato, Aquinas, or Augustine have developed some mathematical formula for what constitutes a moral tax rate.

Whatever happened to lowering taxes for ALL people -- not just the wealthy or large businesses. Most of the "we need lower taxes" crowd only want taxes to be lowered for the wealthy. This is the theory behind "trickle-down" economics where tax breaks for the wealthy and large businesses is supposed to "trickle down" to regular people. In reality, most of these tax breaks stayed right into the pockets of the OEOs and others who got the tax breaks.

I have not had my taxes lowered until just this past year, during the first month of the Obama administration. There is less withholding on my paycheck because my taxes were lowered. Before then, during the years of Reagan, Bush the First, Clinton, and Bush the 2nd, I've seen my taxes either stay the same or else go higher. It was during one of these adminstrations that someone got the "bright" idea of punishing the unemployed by taxing Unemployment benefits. Obama wants some reforms on this taxation: what he needs to do is abolish this onerous taxation on Unemployment altogether.

You could take away 100% of the taxable income of the rich as defined by Mr. Collins, and it would not be enough to pay for the budgets President Obama has proposed in the next few years. Then what? Soon the rich will have to be anyone making over $75,000 in order to set a tax policy that can even make a dent in our deficit. And that doesn't even address looming shortfalls for Medicare and Social Security.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378...

"I think we would be better off in my opinion with a flat income tax after compensating for the poverty level ."

Actually, I agree with you here. A few years ago, I got a promotion and a raise. And my take-home salary actually got lowered due to the "progressive" tax brackets.

However, so many of the "lower-taxes" politicians only talk about lowering taxes for the rich. I know about the Earned Income Credit; I actually qualified for it one year a while ago, after a long stint of unemployment. As I remember, many of the Republicans wanted to eliminate the Earned Income Credit.

Then there were the pure geniuses (I think that both parties were involved) that had the brilliant (???) idea to start taxing Unemployment benefits.

Another "genius" idea, during a recession: McCain first thought of it, but now I read that some Dems think this is a fabulous idea: start charging income tax on workers' health benefits. (eyes roll). All I need is yet another tax increase.

As it has been pointed out, the top one percent of tax payers pay a much higher percent of federal taxes paid than they did in 1955. Almost double.

Our economy has grown tremendously since 1955, thanks in part to tax cuts. And it's not "trickle down" economics (whatever that is). Supply side economists encourage tax cuts because they believe that people can be more productive with their own money than the government can. And not just for rich people. Lower tax rates also lower the cost of the risk that comes with entrepreneurship, investment, or expansion. You're much less likely to undertake the risk of opening a new store or factory if you know that even if you are successful, the government is going to take most of your profit.

I"ve read this idea of having a national sales tax. It sounds fair. And yet, in practice, it would be a disaster.

In the first place, a sales tax is putting a tax on commerce, the mainstain of capitalism. Do we really want to tax capitalism?

Secondly, having a national sales tax would give us items that are more expensive. Which means that people will buy a lot less, especially larger items such as cars.

Thirdly and more importantly: anyone who truly believes that having a national sales tax will mean that the taxes would be a reasonable amount, say 5% -- well I have some swampland in Arizona to sell you. The way the government spends, a national sales tax will be more like 100%. This will result in a depressed economy as people stop spending money.

Most important of all, government is more likely to ADD a national sales tax to the current income tax rather than replace the income tax with a national sales tax. I don't want to give them any more ideas about any new methods for taxing the people.

We need taxes to support at least minimal government functions (I am libertarian, not completely anarchist) such as defense and law enforcement and a few other programs. And "defense" does NOT mean sending our troops all over the place in order to operate as the Great Morality Police of the World. Places such as the Black Hole in Baghdad have been bleeding not only our troops but our tax dollars for years and years.

"Supply side economists encourage tax cuts because they believe that people can be more productive with their own money than the government can. And not just for rich people."

Then why is it, throughout years of "supply side," that my taxes, as a working person, have not been lowered one iota? Where is my tax cut? Only when Obama took office have I gotten any tax cuts.

I thought we had the highest corporate tax rate in this country ?

For some reason, I can't directly reply to your response.

You wrote: "You have received tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts are often called 'tax cuts for the rich,' but the lower and middle classes had their tax rates cut by a much higher percent than the upper class. Just google 'bush tax cuts' and it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how many iotas your taxes have been cut.

And I don't know what you mean by a 'working person.' Rich people work too. In fact, they tend to work a lot more than the rest of us."

I meant people who work for wages. I should have clarified that. Of course rich people work.

OK, while googling on "bush tax cuts" I came across this little gem. I think that here is where we get to the truth about some of the conservatives' beliefs about taxation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090326/pl_m...

Interesting excerpt: "Alan Viard , a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative research organization, recommended that Congress not adopt a significant package of permanent middle-class tax relief "at this time."

"Middle-class tax cuts provide limited incentives for the work and saving that drive economic growth while imposing substantial revenue costs," Viard said in prepared testimony. "Adoption of a large package of permanent middle-class tax relief would add to the long-run fiscal imbalance and impede capital formation, increasing the fiscal burdens on future middle-class taxpayers and reducing wages for middle-class workers."

You could take away 100% of the taxable income of the rich as defined by Mr. Collins, and it would not be enough to pay for the budgets President Obama has proposed in the next few years. Then what? Soon the rich will have to be anyone making over $75,000 in order to set a tax policy that can even make a dent in our deficit. And that doesn't even address looming shortfalls for Medicare and Social Security.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378...

"I think we would be better off in my opinion with a flat income tax after compensating for the poverty level ."

Actually, I agree with you here. A few years ago, I got a promotion and a raise. And my take-home salary actually got lowered due to the "progressive" tax brackets.

However, so many of the "lower-taxes" politicians only talk about lowering taxes for the rich. I know about the Earned Income Credit; I actually qualified for it one year a while ago, after a long stint of unemployment. As I remember, many of the Republicans wanted to eliminate the Earned Income Credit.

Then there were the pure geniuses (I think that both parties were involved) that had the brilliant (???) idea to start taxing Unemployment benefits.

Another "genius" idea, during a recession: McCain first thought of it, but now I read that some Dems think this is a fabulous idea: start charging income tax on workers' health benefits. (eyes roll). All I need is yet another tax increase.

That's one of my pet peeves too. Classifying people as "working people" and "rich". As if the average "rich" person just sits around all day and money just comes to them. The author of this commentary does something similar when he talks about "wage earners" as opposed to wealthy people.

Our income tax system should be abolished. We need a national sales tax, no income tax, no flat tax, although a flat tax would be better than an income tax. What we have now is an absolute mess.

I"ve read this idea of having a national sales tax. It sounds fair. And yet, in practice, it would be a disaster.

In the first place, a sales tax is putting a tax on commerce, the mainstain of capitalism. Do we really want to tax capitalism?

Secondly, having a national sales tax would give us items that are more expensive. Which means that people will buy a lot less, especially larger items such as cars.

Thirdly and more importantly: anyone who truly believes that having a national sales tax will mean that the taxes would be a reasonable amount, say 5% -- well I have some swampland in Arizona to sell you. The way the government spends, a national sales tax will be more like 100%. This will result in a depressed economy as people stop spending money.

Most important of all, government is more likely to ADD a national sales tax to the current income tax rather than replace the income tax with a national sales tax. I don't want to give them any more ideas about any new methods for taxing the people.

We need taxes to support at least minimal government functions (I am libertarian, not completely anarchist) such as defense and law enforcement and a few other programs. And "defense" does NOT mean sending our troops all over the place in order to operate as the Great Morality Police of the World. Places such as the Black Hole in Baghdad have been bleeding not only our troops but our tax dollars for years and years.

You have received tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts are often called "tax cuts for the rich," but the lower and middle classes had their tax rates cut by a much higher percent than the upper class. Just google "bush tax cuts" and it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how many iotas your taxes have been cut.

And I don't know what you mean by a "working person." Rich people work too. In fact, they tend to work a lot more than the rest of us.

I wasn't denigrating anyone's viewpoint. I was disagreeing with it, while quoting an article I happened to have read while following a suggestion you had made.

The spokesperson from the American Enterprise Institute stated in the article what I've been hearing all along during the past eight years. Many of the supply-siders either don't support or else they actively oppose tax relief for middle and lower-income workers.

So let me ask you what you think? Do you agree or disagree with Alan Viard's statement that giving tax relief to the middle-class isn't a policy that Congress should pursue? Do you disagree with Obama's current program of tax relief (that I and many others are enjoying) for middle and lower-income people?

That's one of my pet peeves too. Classifying people as "working people" and "rich". As if the average "rich" person just sits around all day and money just comes to them. The author of this commentary does something similar when he talks about "wage earners" as opposed to wealthy people.

"I think that here is where we get to the truth about some of the conservatives' beliefs about taxation:"

Way to denigrate aview point . But it actually is more fun if you consder the side you are debating is well intentioned and sincere . Also makes little sense speaking about the importance of Easter then making those who just have a simple beleif that a government that is smaller and more locally empowered then Federally is more receptive to the people . That does make loberalism made of insincere people , it means there are two views.

The belief that less government provides great eropportunity is basically at the base of keeping government smaller . Allowing people to spend more of their own money , the money they earned . The conservatrive view point runs into troubles in my view is when our culture no longer does or support doing the right thing . Hence corporations being ruthless in how they treat people , etc . Those with a belief that they are owed something , entitled to a job , entitled to a mortgage with going through the sacrifice of saving , being a reliable credit risk and so on . Freedom to endure requires responsible people . When you don't have responsible people , bigger government looks better . In my opinion for a while only though.,

IYou have no oncerns about the liberal view point in the fact of making government bigger and how that translates to economic opportunity ,taking away motivation. President Obama when he ran for office talked about taking the best ideas from both camps , I really liked that because i do believe both sides are sincere. Right now , as on here it appears one side is considered forthright and sincere, and the side is not . Not sure if the President was sincere when he said that both sides have good ideas, , but it appears politically he has backed away from trying to follow through . Soujouners does not promote the both side view , but from your previous posts about taxes and such I considered you somewhat of an individual .
Still do ,

And also, just a few words on "liberal" versus "conservative." As an independent libertarian who believes in minimal government (and I am not alone), many of us don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

I ended up being an "Obama-con" in that I ended up voting for Obama, even though I didn't agree with his views on bigger government. However, Bush and his neo-con colleagues also have believed in big government.

It was a choice between the lesser of two evils: A neo-con big government, with all sorts of foreign military entanglements, big government programs such as "no child [all taxpayers] left behind," the medicare drug boondoggle, increased government surveillence, wire-tapping, people being held -- and sometime tortured -- without being charged. Big government prying into the private lives of consenting adults, trying to legislate "morality."

The other choice was also big government: but at least we would be decreasing our foreign military entanglements (maybe we are), more emphasis on civil liberties, less prying to try and legislate "morality" for consenting adults. Though I'm still concerned about the wire-tapping without warrants and surveillance of American citizens. And TAX RELIEF for middle and lower-income earners (something I never saw in my pay check during the previous 8 years).

Also the health care system needs to be changed. I was originally a Ron Paul supporter and I support his method of dealing with health expenses: 100% tax credits and deductions for any sorts of health expenses, including insurance premiums. Obama tends more toward government health programs than tax deductions. Still at least he wants to do something about all of the uninsured people in this country (I spent 5 years being uninsured a while ago, and it's no picnic. People die from being uninsured). What was McCain and his Repub colleagues offering? They were offering up a tax INCREASE on employer-provided health benefits, and I certainly was not going to vote for that. Other than that, just more of the same old failed lack of any action as before.

I'm a libertarian who wants less government and more independence and personal liberty. However, I'm also a pragmatist. Given a choice of two different big-government philosophies, I'll pick the one that actually will help most people.

I thought we had the highest corporate tax rate in this country ?

I generally don't comment on online discussions, but I feel compelled to comment here. The phrase "how many poor and disabled people will suffer" is the reason I clicked on this article. Right now the state house here in Massachusetts is about to vote on a budget that will cut funding for early intervention for children with disabilities by 31%. More than 10,000 children will not receive services if this passes.

I have heard it said many times that people will use their own money more effectively than government will use it, so that it makes more sense to tax them less. Rick Santorum used to advocate giving families caring for individuals with autism a tax credit as a way to fund adult services for those with autism. But life-long care for an individual with autism averages $3.2 million. No tax credit will cover that, nor will local charities. Without adequate government-funded services, families bankrupt themselves and still can't meet the needs of their children.

The safety-net is really about saying "there but for the grace of God go I."