National Debt and GOP Candidates

[Ddrak]

GOP: http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf
Obama: http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/ana ... budget.pdf

All GOP Candidates except maybe Paul are worse than Obama on debt. Gingrich and Santorum are completely appalling. None of this is particularly surprising (sadly).

Dd

[Torakus]

I think Paul is worse than Obama simply because much of what he proposes is unachievable or creates more problems than it solves. God save us if we elect any of these boobs.

[Lurker]

I'm really shocked by this news.

[Minute]

Are the presidential plans ever even used? I thought they always put one forth & then it was almost completely ignored.

[Lurker]

Not true. Presidents try to enact the policies they campaigned on.

At least the easy ones.

A Republican President would almost certainly push their tax cut policies through Congress. They would also almost certainly fail to push meaningful spending cuts. Which means they wouldn't just be worse than Obama on the deficit as their proposals indicate, they would be much, much, much worse on the deficit.

And their policies take us in the wrong direction on investments and income inequality and would further damage the economy.

Other than that they are an awesome bunch.

[Kulaf]

This is why I am still leaning toward supporting the President for a 2nd term.

[Ddrak]

If I had to pick one of the GOP bunch, it would be Romney by a mile (at least he's somewhat realiatic) and Paul a distant second (he has a bunch of really good policies and a bunch of total nut job ones). The other two are walking disasters.

Dd

[Torakus]

I just don't get how any of these clowns think that cutting taxes, for anyone, is going to solve the problem.

I went back and looked at my taxes for this year and my effective tax rate comes out to 13.8%, and I am the type that actually claims fewer deductions than I could, just to save the pain of keeping detailed records. I could probably lower my tax liability a little more, but what is the point. Frankly 14% of my pay going to federal tax and another 9% going to state isn't really killing me. I make enough that my family is still very comfortable.

What I would really like to see is everyone paying a little. It wouldn't amount to a hill of beans but the 50ish% who pay no tax at all, should be required to pay a couple percent, and a reduction in the number who pay no tax yet receive refunds from IRS apparently totaling close to 100 billion per year (this is a butt number I keep hearing in conservative talking points, I have not verified it) would be nice.

What we don't want is stupid shit like Ron Paul suggesting we do away with income tax altogether, push federal infrastructure spending (highway spending) off to the States, privatize large federal agencies (hint to Ron - contractors cost more than government employees), and finally the dumbest shit ever, eliminating our military presence around the world. I used to think Paul had some good domestic policy ideas until I actually read them. I don't disagree that our foreign policy of bullying people around through power projection rather than through diplomacy needs to go, but the complete Isolationism that Paul suggests is retarded.

I have to agree with Lurker that I don't really see Gingrich, Santorum or Romney following through with spending cuts. They might follow through with attempts to cut entitlement spending, but rest assured they will fill those numbers back up with spending in their pet areas and through the pork barrel.

Tora

[Jarochai Alabaster]

the 50ish% who pay no tax at all

Literally do not exist.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You're right, its only 49.5%.

[Ddrak]

I think he's referring to the lack of qualification on the statement. "Paid no federal income tax" is probably closer to the mark because there's all sorts of other ways you pay taxes.

Dd

[Torakus]

I think he's referring to the lack of qualification on the statement. "Paid no federal income tax" is probably closer to the mark because there's all sorts of other ways you pay taxes.

Dd

That is correct. I should have qualified it as income tax to keep Jarochi from setting up another rant on how unfair the tax burden is on the working poor, while ignoring things like EIC that offset those exact same tax burdens and afford max credit by ignoring income gained through disbursements received via the very entitlement programs the rest of us support with our income taxes.

Tora

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I should have qualified it as income tax to keep Jarochi from setting up another rant on how unfair the tax burden is on the working poor

I've literally never done that before, nor do I feel that the tax burden is particularly unfair on the working poor (Since, as you say they don't pay taxes - except SSI, Medicare, State taxes, sales tax, wheel tax, etc). What I feel is unfair is the unequal tax burden of the wealthy over the middle class.

while ignoring things like EIC that offset those exact same tax burdens and afford max credit by ignoring income gained through disbursements received via the very entitlement programs the rest of us support with our income taxes.

I acknowledge and support these programs with my income taxes, too...so yeah, no one's ignoring them. The difference between us is that I actually understand that they do more good than harm, while you pretend that people too poor to own cars are getting some sort of "free ride" through life. And as I've said before, if we're genuinely concerned with the ~47% who pay no income tax, perhaps we should focus on raising the incomes of middle-class working families so that they don't fall below the tax-free threshold. But you don't seem to be very interested in that. Why is that?

Taxing welfare disbursements would be an unnecessary extra layer in the process - if you pay less out to the clients you can keep the surplus in the program's fund, reducing the necessary tax revenue to maintain the program. Also, unemployment insurance payments are taxed.

Bottom line: The "half of Americans don't even pay taxes!" line is deliberately dishonest bullshit. There is a shitload more taxes out there than just income tax, and the attempt to frame the argument that half of the country has no actual tax burden is a blatant lie and an attempt to deceive people into feeling like they have a political and social enemy with "the poor."

[Torakus]

I should have qualified it as income tax to keep Jarochi from setting up another rant on how unfair the tax burden is on the working poor

I've literally never done that before, nor do I feel that the tax burden is particularly unfair on the working poor (Since, as you say they don't pay taxes - except SSI, Medicare, State taxes, sales tax, wheel tax, etc). What I feel is unfair is the unequal tax burden of the wealthy over the middle class.

while ignoring things like EIC that offset those exact same tax burdens and afford max credit by ignoring income gained through disbursements received via the very entitlement programs the rest of us support with our income taxes.

I acknowledge and support these programs with my income taxes, too...so yeah, no one's ignoring them. The difference between us is that I actually understand that they do more good than harm, while you pretend that people too poor to own cars are getting some sort of "free ride" through life. And as I've said before, if we're genuinely concerned with the ~47% who pay no income tax, perhaps we should focus on raising the incomes of middle-class working families so that they don't fall below the tax-free threshold. But you don't seem to be very interested in that. Why is that?

Taxing welfare disbursements would be an unnecessary extra layer in the process - if you pay less out to the clients you can keep the surplus in the program's fund, reducing the necessary tax revenue to maintain the program. Also, unemployment insurance payments are taxed.

Bottom line: The "half of Americans don't even pay taxes!" line is deliberately dishonest bullshit. There is a shitload more taxes out there than just income tax, and the attempt to frame the argument that half of the country has no actual tax burden is a blatant lie and an attempt to deceive people into feeling like they have a political and social enemy with "the poor."

BLUF: 1.1trillion dollars each year goes uncollected because of people who pay no effective federal income tax. It isn't just the working poor either, it goes from top to bottom. 30% of the folks paying nothing actually make over 50K a year and somehow almost 5% of these folks make over 100k per year. Around 70% of these folks pay payroll tax, with 70% of those breaking even on them through return and 30% actually getting paid for not paying income tax. I think if you are going to take away the credits and deductions from the top 15% of tax payers, you at least have to charge an alternative minimum tax on all other tax payers. Even something as small as 2% generates close to 100 billion in revenue and saves another 100 billion in pay outs. The minimum wage earner takes a whopping $8.00 a week hit to their pay to become contributing members of society rather than a burden. Gosh what ever will they do?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

And as I've said before, if we're genuinely concerned with the ~47% who pay no income tax, perhaps we should focus on raising the incomes of middle-class working families so that they don't fall below the tax-free threshold. But you don't seem to be very interested in that. Why is that?

I rest my case.

[Ddrak]

Even something as small as 2% generates close to 100 billion in revenue and saves another 100 billion in pay outs.

That makes no sense. There's around 65 million people who fall below the income threshold with an average taxable income of around $15k for a total AGI of around a trillion. 2% of that is 20 billion. The "100 billion payouts" is just a myth as far as I can tell from the IRS publications.

The minimum wage earner takes a whopping $8.00 a week hit to their pay

To get 200 billion from 65 million people, you need $3000 per annum. That amounts to $58 per week, not $8 per week. Your math is seriously flawed because your revenue target would slug low income earners for an effective 20% tax rate.

So, assuming you really meant 2% and not 20% you increase revenue from 860 billion to 880 billion by cutting 8 bucks of food (quite a lot really) from the plates of the poorest people. Not a good tradeoff.

Dd

[Torakus]

The IRS documents I have been reading have those 65 million people between 15k and 50k. 50k and below all qualify for credits, increasing based on family size, that reduce their tax liability to zero or below. I used an average, which I have to admit was dumb since there are likely more 15k than 50k in that pool, but either way 2% is not onerous and it increases revenue. Notice I am proposing letting them keep their credits and deductions while eliminating all credits and deduction above 50k (75k is probably better though). If the party line that eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest will stimulate the economy, then hell that 2% shouldn't hurt at all. I lived on low wages. Hell I had two kids in high school before I ever made more than 50k a year, and somehow I scratched by and I was paying a whole lot more than 2% during that time.


Jarochi,

What do we get out of artificially inflating the wages of middle class working families? I counter propose that we give them the opportunity to volunteer for government work projects that would either earn them extra cash or tax credits.

Tora

[Jarochai Alabaster]

What do we get out of artificially inflating the wages of middle class working families? I counter propose that we give them the opportunity to volunteer for government work projects that would either earn them extra cash or tax credits.

Who said anything about artificial inflation? You seem to have this problem with seeing what I type and reading it as you want to.

[Lurker]

If the party line that eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest will stimulate the economy, then hell that 2% shouldn't hurt at all.

That's not the party line.

The party line is that tax breaks for the wealthy, given that their effective rate is already at historic lows, is lousy economic policy and provides almost no economic stimulus. The party line is that increasing taxes on the wealthiest and then using that money to invest in needed programs will stimulate the economy.

[Torakus]

If the party line that eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest will stimulate the economy, then hell that 2% shouldn't hurt at all.

That's not the party line.

The party line is that tax breaks for the wealthy, given that their effective rate is already at historic lows, is lousy economic policy and provides almost no economic stimulus. The party line is that increasing taxes on the wealthiest and then using that money to invest in needed programs will stimulate the economy.

I don't think we are too far apart, though we probably disagree on how that money should be invested. I won't presume to know what you propose to do with it, but I would invest it in infrastructure in the hopes of creating jobs, even if temporary that should stimulate growth. What I wouldn't do is provide more hand outs. There has to be a sane way to break the poverty cycle that doesn't include paying people to not work. I don't know what it is, and I certainly haven't found it in any of the budget proposals from the tards in this Presidential primary.

perhaps we should focus on raising the incomes of middle-class working families so that they don't fall below the tax-free threshold.

Perhaps you would share with us some ideas on how you would do it.