Obama Weighs Tax Overhaul in Bid to Address Debt

New York Times ^ | December 9, 2010 | Jackie Calmes

[April Lexington]

p

[April Lexington]

p

[a fool in paradise]

If they “extend” the Bush tax cuts, I won’t see an extra dime. I’ll just be staying at the same rate. This is not Bush’s fault, it’s just a way of saying that Obama’s options are “raise taxes” (which is where we are headed now for all), “keep taxes where they are” (adopting a renewal of the Bush tax cuts), or “lower taxes” (seems to be off the table).

[a fool in paradise]

I was referring to the fact that the FairTax allows legal avoidance of the tax by simply saving and spending outside the country. The resulting change in spending habits of the top 1% of producers would result in a $500B/yr hole in revenues compared to what HR25 expects. So it would not be “revenue neutral” without raising the rate from 23% to something much higher. That would encourage even more legal and illegal efforts to avoid it, in a death spiral. The math just doesn’t work unless you assume no change in people’s spending habits.

Like the billions of dollars that are wired out of the country bill illegal immigrants?

[laxcoach]

“The trick. Eliminate deductions with a lower rate...then raise the rate. Do not fall for it.”

I agree. Also, if anything they should start with eliminating credits, especially the welfare payment known as EITC. Welfare should go through welfare programs.

From wiki on EITC “The EITC is the largest poverty reduction program in the United States. Almost 21 million American families received more than $36 billion in refunds through the EITC in 2004.”

[oldbill]

Income is income. Your salary comes from money that has also been taxed (your employer’s receipts).

If any income is exempted, you provide a loophole that is an unfair tax distribution. Leona Helmsley was 100% accurate when she said only the little people pay taxes. Back when the marginal tax rate was 91%, do you really think any rich people paid that? They found other ways to get their income, like dividends, exempt payments, etc.

[oldbill]

Forbes Flat Tax does not address all income, so it is not a good plan. People like Forbes would find other ways to be paid outside salaries subject to taxation.

[oldbill]

Your logic fails. You could use the same reasoning for any tax system, that is, whatever is established could be changed.

[firebrand]

You’re suggesting raising rates on the lowest bracket by 50 percent?

[oldbill]

My numbers are notional. You would have to do an analysis with this proposal to see what the actual tax rate would have to be based on actual expenditures (which would also be cut in an ideal world, but that’s another issue).

I used 15%, but it could come out to be 17%, or 21%, or 13%, whatever. The point is, it would be the same for all. Rich would pay a lot more in total taxes, but only because they make a lot more. And now, rich don’t pay what you are probably paying, because they know a zillion ways to hide it via dividends, corporate perks, investment schemes, trust funds, that you have no access to.

The $15,000 base is also notional. It could be $10,000 or $22,000 or $17,000.

Remember, 49% of the people now do not pay ANY income taxes, concentrated in the very poor (no income) and the very rich (hidden income).

My proposal would get many of these back on the tax rolls, while allowing the very destitute (>$15,000) an exemption for basic living essentials. But you in the middle class and the very rich would also have that exemption. After that, everybody pays their fair share, no outs.

[firebrand]

Sounds OK I guess. I am wary of tax “simplification” by Obama, however, since it’s going to be crafted to benefit him somehow.

[Kellis91789]

In the sense that anyone who can afford to defer spending their money until a later time, yes, they will do that to avoid paying 23% of their money in taxes.