Tackling the deficit

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    So Mr. Bernanke is tellin' congress to take on the deficit.

    I'm going to ignore the unavoidable comment because the fact is we're in this mess and this is what we have to deal with. Now. Government spending seems to be the focus of the public and I'm quite pleased Mr. Bernanke is now telling congress to look for ways to bring this under control.

    And that last quote brings up the fun part. What is our plan of action? USA Today has some thoughts:

    None of these look fun. :( I have to say that raising taxes in a nation with 10% unemployment is foolish when those that do have jobs aren't making as much money. Rising taxes would certainly hurt people and the government could bring in less than if taxes remains the same or were lowered. The Bush Tax Cuts is certainly the most interesting number and the most obvious solution. That certainly will not go over well. And I think you need to be careful if you're going to reverse that cut entirely or look for different ways to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can move and the poor/middle class cannot. We saw this in Maryland when not only did they raise the top income tax rate, but they got even less money than before. Why? The rich bailed. Probably moved to Virginia... If we do this on a national scale expect a boom in Swiss banking. :rolleyes:

    People need to get to work and raising the gasoline tax is the absolute worst thing you could do. Not only will you drain people out of whatever precious money they have, you'll hurt their ability to save and buy the more expensive green technologies.

    And lastly there are whispers of the VAT tax coming to America! Needless to say I'm completely against a VAT. I can't imagine buying a new car and not only paying Texas' 8% sales, but a federal one too? I think I won't be the only one saying, screw new cars I'll buy used. What do you want to bet that if the VAT is on the table, that Detroit will lobby for exemptions on car sales.

    A simple answer to all this would be to cut military spending. But where?

    I'm posting this graphic again because it's relevant to the thread. This helps me see what the military spends its money on.

    [​IMG]

    For starters I would create a checklist for Iraq and Afghanistan. Have goals and have heads roll if they're not completed by so and so date. Not literally chop people's heads off but I would be very strict about bringing these two theaters to a close. I'd also stop paying for Israel and Egypt.
     
  2. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #2
    Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a no-brainer, I think. We had a decade to try trickle down economy. It didn't work very well, and would have been even worse if the housing bubble hadn't made the economy look better than it actually was for 7 years (but, hey, it all worked out in the end!).

    Obama should let the top tax brackets go back up– they'd still be lower than under GoP deity Ronald Reagan. There's also been a tax cut for 98% of Americans, but it excludes the top 2%.

    The military budget is, in my opinion, ridiculous. With all their high tech equipment, training, and weapons, the US still had to bribe half of the Iraqi insurgents to kill the other half to scrape any sort of victory in Iraq. The war(s) on terror can't be won with traditional tactics, yet the US is still spending and developing military tech like it's going to fight a traditional war with Russia or China or some other equally matched superpower. A multibillion dollar missile system on a billion dollar plane isn't going to help when the enemy doesn't have tanks, barracks, control centers, warships, an air force, etc. All that you do is end up killing civilians along with the bad guys.

    There needs to be serious reduction there. Cutting and trimming little domestic programs will do practically nothing to solve the governments overarching budget crisis, but it will have very real effects on American citizens. Remember the Ben & Jerry's Oreo movie?

    And cutting anything to do with medicare will be impossible. Democrats needed a super majority and later reconciliation just to cut a tiny bit of waste out of it. Government out of medicare and all that good stuff.

    But I'm just some d00d on the interwebz. I'm sure what I think makes very little sense if I was smart enough to understand economics even a little.
     
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Eliminate the Estate Tax and the Capital Gains Tax completely.

    Not in the way Republicans want, but eliminate the preferencial treatment for income received from estates or corporations.

    Every penny you receive from an estate is income to you and should be taxed at ordinary income levels. If you want to put a minimal threshold on this, like $250,000, that's understandable to avoid administrative costs.

    Every penny you make from the sale of any asset should be treated like any other income and treated at ordinary income levels.

    That would raise a lot of money and be a lot more fair.
     
  4. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #4
    So, if we were to implement all those changes we're looking at a total savings of $5.227 Trillion

    Wow.
     
  5. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    Sadly, this will not have the desired effect and will ultimately become regressive. If the wealthy want to avoid this tax, they simply trust-up their assets so that the estate ends up consisting of a boat and a bunch of silverware.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    But, if you tax all income at ordinary levels, the trust would pay tax on any transfers to it, and taxes would be paid on all transfers out.

    Repealing the estate tax would raise something like 50 billion or so per year. They collected about 30 billion with all the special breaks, so I would guess that if you treated the transfers like any other income, it would be somewhere between 30-50 billion.

    The capital gains preference being eliminated would raise the money collected (120 billion) by the difference between whatever ordinary income rate the person/business has versus the preferential rate. I would guess an additional 10-20% per year.
     
  7. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #7
    1. Reduce government pensions and payroll to 85% of the private sector equivalent. Their bonus is job security

    2. Anything the government can do should be put up for competitive bid contracts.

    3. Ditch EITC (wasn't that a Reagan blunder or just a Republican one?)

    4. Across the board 10% budget cut, all departments, no exceptions.

    5. All government programs have automatic sunset provisions, renewable by vote every two years.

    6. No government program, entitlement/etc, can increase in the two years it is active (this means no inflation adjustment/cola) unless voted by 2/3 majority

    7. No law shall be applied to the public that is not applied to all members of the government.

    8. Political donations taxed at highest income level equivalent for set amounts to be determined by Congress. No more twenty to fifty million dollar Senate races, no more billion dollar Presidential races

    9. Cigarette tax of $10 a PACK, now.

    10. Gas tax of $1 a gallon phased in across five years


    9.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    Problem with this one is job security is not enough to get good people for government jobs. Government pay is a lot lower than private sector. The perks of government work is the benefits are better and job security but if you want just job security you would have to raise the pay by quite a bit so they savings would be nil.

    Not everything can be competitive bid. Yes a lot of things can be but for example engineering work can not be competitively bid. It is a qualification based in engineering. Most constuction work is competitively bid but now days that is being reduces a little in favor of design build which is not only faster but some times cheaper because you have the expertise of the people doing the construction looking for ways to make it cheaper to better to build.



    Great in theory. Not in practice.

    It does noting. You can look at states that have sun set provisions. All that happens is everything is just renewed and the items that really have to be renewed turn into bargaining chips to get other crap passed so it more increases cost not decreases cost.
    Crap items are just renewed and key items become bargaining chips to get more crap passed.
    Not a good idea as you need to increase pay to keep up with inflation so the benefits are not decreased.
    Sounds like a good idea.
    Great in theory but it will be impossible to get the corrupt bastards (almost all of them) in office to pass something that cuts into their bribe money.

    While I agree that we need to get smoking down this would be a very regressive tax and very heavily tax the poor as it is shown that the poor smoke in much higher percentage that the rich and more educated
    Slowing raising gas tax might be a good idea and it would increase sales of more full efficient cars. It pretty clear people are not going to buy cars that get better gas mileage until it makes economics sense to do so.
    When gas was $4-5 a gallon the sales of small cars sky rocketed.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    What's the private sector equivalent of a policeman? A security guard? Great idea, let's pay cops 85% of what the guy guarding the mall makes!

    And what's the equivalent of a city manager? CEO? What's the average CEO make? A hell of a lot more than a city manager, I can tell you that.

    This is just a bad idea on several levels. First, it's hard to even make a straight-across translation from government to private sector for a whole host of job categories. And second, you'd simply exacerbate the already massive management/worker income disparity. In some cases you'd be cutting salaries dramatically, and in other cases you'd be increasing salaries to stratospheric amounts that could potentially bankrupt cities and counties.

    While I'm largely supportive of open, competitive contract awards; as someone who deals with low-bid contracts every day, I can tell you that the phrase "you get what you pay for" is most apt. There's gotta be a better way than straight low-bid for public projects. I've watched unscrupulous contractors deliberately lowball a project, then turn around and fight for every penny they can get through changes to the contract amount. I know many owners who would much rather take the slightly higher bids from the reputable folks because they know they won't have to spend every waking hour fighting off requests for more money.

    That particular bit of welfare spending was created by Ford, IIRC, and expanded by every president since then, including every "fiscally conservative" Republican.

    Even the military? Really?

    The problem with this approach is that it punishes anyone who has already sought to run a tight ship. It provides an incentive to bloat budgets as a hedge against these kinds of overly-broad cuts. It's the hatchet-vs-scalpel argument again.

    I'd rather see some kind of performance-based incentives for efficiency.

    A laudable goal, but you'd have the same problems with omnibus legislation that you do now. Underperforming programs supported by X legislator would simply be bound up in otherwise popular legislative packages, and congresscritters trying to vote down any individual program would be subject to campaign commercials suggesting that so-and-so "voted against mothers, baseball, and apple pies".

    The 2/3 thing is extremely anti-democratic, and should be dropped. Why should a committed minority get to dictate to the majority?

    ??? What laws are you talking about here?

    I LOL'd at this. Particularly in light of the Citizen's United decision. The costlier the races, the more the upper crust benefits, as only their chosen candidates can afford to play in that sandbox. Besides, taxing speech isn't going to go over well, considering that currently political donations are a tax *deduction*!

    If you really want to be rid of those eye-popping figures, you're probably better off advocating for a publicly financed campaign system.

    Not gonna fix the deficit problem, although it would put a dent in health care costs if it got a lot of folks to quit.

    The reason it won't help the deficit is because it will force so many to simply quit smoking. If they quit, the revenue stream goes away. You can only tax a sin so much before people simply give it up and switch to something else. Unlike, say, gas -- which most people cannot do without. Which brings us to:

    I have mixed feelings about a gas tax like this. On the one hand, it would excel at reducing consumption and increasing revenue (we currently consume some 378 million gallons of gasoline a day), some $1.3 trillion per year at current levels. Obviously a $1/gal tax would decrease consumption, but roughly a trillion per year into the coffers doesn't seem unreasonable based on those numbers.

    On the other hand, who would be stuck with the worst-performing cars? The older, less efficient models? Those least likely to be able to afford the increase. Such a tax is highly regressive.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    Who says we have job security? I work for the state of California and know that notion is a myth. I also don't think too many people could get by on $3.50 an hour, which is what I (20 years experience in my field, 10 years working in my department) would get paid under you plan.

    Slaves had job security and worked for nothing. Perhaps I should do the same and just be happy to not be whipped by my master too often.

    Next time you want to come up with a suggestion, try to come up with something remotely reasonable. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Actually private security works pretty well.

    http://www.economist.com/business-finance/economics-focus/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15867693
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    I made no claim to the contrary, although the article you cite makes it seem pretty clear that attempting to use the same pay structure for police wouldn't work very well.

    Then imagine they were paid 15% less.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  14. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #14
    We need to start tackling the deficit no question about it.

    However we need to STOP cutting from education. Its been an ongoing trend for the past 30 years. A program here, a pension there, furlough days, stagnant salaries. My gf's mom, has been teaching kindergarten for 30 years. When she started her salary was $39,000, 30 years later her salary is only $51,000. Factor in inflation and experience and she has basically lost money. Now the state (Maine) is looking to cut benefits, programs and start furlough days where the teachers have to work for no pay.

    My School (University of Hawaii) over the past 2 years has cut something like 25% of its course offerings.

    K-12 education in Hawaii is even harder hit, we have 2 mandatory furlough Fridays a month where students just don't go to school. Add that on top of the ageing infrastructure (most public schools here look like prisons) and it is just out of hand.

    The military budget goes up year after but education gets cut year after year.

    I wanted to go to grad school to become a professor. I have a passion for social sciences and would love to teach, but the ongoing trend is pushing me towards considering law school instead when I am done in 2 years.
     
  15. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #15
    No, what you said makes sense. You and I both agree that the military budget needs to be reduced.

    We'd be paying more in gas which leaves us less for saving. Energy-efficient appliances? Too expensive since my money is in the gas tank sort of thing. You said it with cigarettes being taxed, you may end up having your desired effect of lowered gasoline consumption but at the cost of reeduced tax revenue than before which leads us back to square 1. And in an economy where people are driving to get to work I don't think making it more expensive for people to do so is the right thing to do.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    There's a difference in the demand structure of the two products though. One can simply eliminate cigarettes from their lives with one easily identifiable act (obviously not always very simple on a personal level, but easy to identify and act upon if you choose to). One cannot simply eliminate gasoline and diesel from their lives without resorting to drastic survivalist-type existence levels. Damn near everything you own, use, or consume has some kind of relationship to petro-fuels, whether as a component or simply because it took a truck ride to get to you.

    As I noted, a tax on gasoline WOULD most certainly REDUCE it's usage, just as with a sin tax. But as I also noted, sins are much easier to give up when financially motivated. Gasoline is not a sin item, therefore it isn't subject to the same demand structure.

    Further, my suspicion is that smokers faced with a $10/pack tax will more than likely opt to outright quit smoking than to attempt to reduce their smoking habit to fit their previous smoking budget. And I would suspect that the exact opposite is true with regard to gasoline. People would be far more likely to look for ways to reduce their gas consumption to fit their previous gasoline budget than they would be to decide to go gas-free (which, as I noted above, is a far more daunting lifestyle change than quitting smoking).

    Thus I don't see it as unreasonable to suggest that a $10/pack tax on cigarettes would cause a much greater behavior shift than a $1/gallon tax on gasoline would.

    Taxing something will always modify behavior surrounding use or consumption of the taxed thing. But the extent of the behavior modification varies dramatically depending on how critical that thing is judged to be to our daily lives.
     
  17. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #17
    But it's not ordinary income; it's already been heavily taxed when it was earned. So parents who have saved their whole life so that they can provide a some future financial security for their children should not only be taxed around 35% on that income, it should also be taxed when the kids get it at another 35%? That is ridiculous. In my opinion, once you paid your share of taxes on income the money should be yours to spend however you see fit. Estate and gift taxes are already significant, I don't think any more is right.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Claims of double taxation only applies when the same person is taxed on the same transaction of money more than once. The inheritance tax is not a double taxation, since the recipient has never paid taxes on that money before. Taxation typically happens when money changes hands. That's all an inheritance is, a change in possession of money.

    What you are suggesting is that certain income types not be taxed at all. I fail to see how that is "right". (Leaving aside the argument that most people already pay zero on that income stream due to the exemption level.)
     
  19. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #19
    OK, I see your point on the double taxation being the same recipient, but it my misuse of the term doesn't change my opinion on the topic at hand. When someone earns money they should be free to spend it however they want. Parents already provide for their child monetarily, whether that be buying them food, putting money away for education, or perhaps giving them an allowance. Once the child either reaps the benefits of these money-based gifts (either going to college or just eating), or spends the allowance money on buying a toy it's taxed as consumption when it's spent.

    Many people in this thread are advocates of the following. The numbers are made up just so they're easily divisible.

    Someone works 10 hours at $10/hour. They made $100. Assume a 30% tax rate. They have $70 left. Let's assume that money is transferred to the child in totality. Taxed at another 30%, the kid gets $49. Once he buys something for consumption that is taxed at 10%, he got an economic benefit worth about $44. In this situation, a simple case of a parent giving an immediate family member (child) some money to spend at his/her discretion, the government got a 66% cut of the original money that was only spent once. Sure, it's hard to sympathize with someone who is fortunate enough to get a significant amount of money from their parents when so many other people are struggling to get by, but that doesn't make it any less onerous.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    One idea would be to tax every financial instrument trade at the highest level feasible. This would encourage investors to select stocks, futures, options and other notes based on how they would be likely to perform over the long run rather than trying to make big bucks on speculation.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    The only way this analogy is apt is if the child's allowance is upwards of $1 million dollars. IIRC, that's the current threshhold for the estate tax to kick in, and even then you're only being taxed on inheritance monies above that level. The first million is transferred tax free.

    The estate tax is part of the American ideal of not creating a royalty-by-birthright nation that we fought so hard to get away from.

    Leaving that aside, however; you raise the issue that you feel that "when someone earns money, they should be free to spend it however they want". Obviously this cannot be a categorically true statement, otherwise one would be able to support terrorist organizations, create monopolies, or build a pig farm in a suburban development with their money. But even assuming you didn't actually mean to imply such a broad right, your argument suggests that you think ANY taxation on your income is unjust. If any money is taken in taxation, you have been deprived of your right to spend it in a legal fashion, no?

    Here's some more made up numbers:

    Income source A: $100
    Tax owed: $35

    Income source B: $100
    Tax owed: $15

    Income source C: $100
    Tax owed: $0.

    Why is it right to have such a discrepancy? And why is it right that the harder you work for your income, the more it gets taxed?

    Or we could look at another series of numbers:
    Let's say I'm designing a house for someone. They pay me $70 for a set of plans. But when they first got that money, it was originally $100. Upon my receipt of that money, it's again taxed at 30%, and I'm left with a net of $49. I go out and spend that on a widget, but after the government takes it's 10% cut, I'm left with an economic benefit of about $44.

    Your fixation on the concept of "spent" is where the problem comes in. You really need to think of it in terms of "transferred". In both yours and my scenarios, the money is transferred from one party to another twice, thus the similar outcome.
     
  22. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #22
    I was responding to someone who said every penny should be taxed at normal income levels.

    No, it's part of the government wanting more revenue. The way they sold it is by saying they don't want a royalty-by-birthright nation. As it stands now, sure, someone can inherit a couple million, but they're not superior to anyone else, just in the number of zeros in their bankaccounts. Our economic system is largely meritocratic, and that's the way it should be.

    You're mostly correct. While it's no secret I view taxes as some kind of evil, they are necessary to a certain extent. I'm completely fine with being taxed enough to support necessary government services such as police/fire, infrastructure, and courts that ensure or strive to create a society with a rule of law, individual liberty, and opportunity for advancement. The problem comes in when you know your tax burden is far higher than you think it should be. The problem comes in when the government subsidizes behavior that you shouldn't need to subsidize, whether that be bailing out large companies or subsidizing the failings of individual behavior through so-called consumer protections.


    Person C, even though they didn't work for their money, did not directly affect Person A and B's ability to make money. Believe me, I'd much rather have the satisfaction of making my own fortune than inheriting it (the latter is just not going to happen anyway), but I don't think that money transfers between a parent and child should be the same as the child working a job in a corporation and making the money. Parents should be able to give their money to their children without excessive penalties.


    I'd like to continue this discussion but the NBA playoffs are on. I might be on and off throughout the day, but I'm not avoiding anything if I don't respond.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    "The biggest revenue boost would come from eliminating the Bush tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001 and 2003. If all of them were wiped out, the government would collect about $2.8 trillion more in taxes over the next decade, according to CBO."

    True. However, it reduces the amount of money available for investment in business expansion and creation of jobs.

    "Ending the deduction for state and local taxes would raise $862 billion over 10 years."

    IOW, a tax-tax. Duh?

    "Limiting the deduction for charitable giving to amounts greater than 2% of adjusted gross income would raise $221 billion."

    Hey, that's one way to reduce that evil, bad-nasty old waste of money on charitable giving!

    The more tax money that goes into government, the less there is for investment. The thing about the Bush tax cuts is that they mostly benefitted the small- to middle-sized businesses and non-incorporated business people. They provide over half the country's jobs. Hit on them, hit on the economy. Jolly good show, what?

    All in all, I really don't think we can have both a viable economy and a high enough amount of tax revenues to pay our way. We've dug too deep a hole.
     
  24. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    What is the definition of hard work? Is it the amount of effort put forth or the end result? I have know some rather hard-working thieves in my day.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    My mistake then. I assumed that since you quoted me, then responded to my point, that you were addressing my argument.

    Well, I guess I can't really argue with that, other than to say that I think you're wrong. I suppose you're entitled to the opinion that someone's stated motive is not what they claim it is. But by the same token, I could argue that people who say they believe in estate tax repeal on egalitarian grounds really are just greedy bastards who sell the idea of royalty-by-birthright by saying they want freedom from oppressive government for all of us.

    I would also point out that if the goal was simply to get more revenue, the tax would be structured differently. Specifically, there would be little or no exemption. The part that convinces me that this is a legitimate attempt to avoid having a royalty-by-birthright class in this nation is that it specifically goes after only estates worth considerably more than the average American is likely to get. As I recall, less than 10,000 families are subject to this tax each year, and the average estate affected is worth some $15 million. That sure sounds like it's going after the people whom the argument says they will.

    They're not superior to anyone else in any way, except for access to superior schools, superior health care, superior locations to live, superior prospects for their children, etc. And simply because of birthright, not because of any meritous behavior.

    And really, this isn't who we're talking about. You can give a million bucks tax free to your kid right now as the law stands. So that already gives you access to superior schools, health care yadda yadda yadda. What we're talking about are the families who are passing on tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

    The superiority aspect to all this really doesn't bother me at all. There will always be people living higher on the hog than me, and that's ok. What bothers me is that I think it is bad for our nation to allow the unfettered accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few families. If we're truly to have a meritocracy in this country, the last names of the super-rich should be changing over the years. I firmly believe that it is good for the nation for people to (legally and ethically) work their way into the ranks of the super-rich. I don't in any way begrudge these people their vast fortunes. This is the essence of a meritocracy. The antithesis of a meritocracy is vast sums of wealth accorded to someone by birthright.

    Which is a completely separate argument than one stating that no amount of inheritance should be taxed.

    I'm tempted to delve into your assertion that "the problem comes in when you know your tax burden is far higher than you think it should be", but since there's just so much there to unpack and address, and since it's really outside the scope of this current debate, I think I'll just leave it alone for now.

    First of all, those are not separate people. They are the same person, with three different sources of income. So this idea that one source of income doesn't affect the others is not at all applicable. A single person makes $100 three different ways, and is taxed radically differently depending on which way it was acquired. This seems at odds with the concept of "fairness" that so many seek to apply to income tax.

    And let's be honest here. 98% of parents ARE able to give their money to their children without excessive penalties. In fact, 98% of parents are able to give their money to their children without ANY penalties. And I'm more than willing to consider arguments to raise the exemption level, or other fixes, as necessary to keep it this way.

    *Warning: Opinion Ahead*
    I believe that we should encourage a meritocracy in this county, and I view this as being one way of achieving that goal. Allowing unchecked accumulations of wealth among a tiny percentage of families isn't healthy for the nation at large. I certainly don't mind seeing the Gates' and the Jobs' of the world sitting on their piles of money. They've earned it in this meritocracy; but, and here's the key, along the way they have provided the rest of us with things that have benefitted society at large far beyond the value of any compensation they'll ever receive. They should even be able to give their children one hell of a head start in this meritocracy, which they'll be more than able to do. The kids will get a head start of a million bucks plus just about half of the rest of the fortune. With that kind of support, any person who deserved to go anywhere in a meritocracy should be able to make a go at life.

    However, I'm sure that makes me a communist, opposing the idea of royalty like that; and asking that everyone who's capable of pulling their own weight in society do so.

    Enjoy. No response is necessary, you won't hurt my feelings.

    I'll not attempt to define hard work, I am only using the term "harder" as a way of ranking those different income types difficulty to come by. For anyone unfamiliar with the rates, the 35% rate would be for income earned by working at your job. The 15% rate would be for income earned by your investments. The zero percent rate would be an untaxed inheritance.
     

Share This Page