Bipartisan Tax proposal

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby Cathy » Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:57 pm

I found the following interesting. It is a proposal to eliminate a number of deductions and tax dodges and eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax.

http://gregg.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/W ... 0Pager.pdf
Cathy
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:10 am

Re: Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby KeithE » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:02 pm

I like the simplification, keeping charitable donation deductions and I hope it would end the personal and corporate tax cheats (most of the Fortune 500 paid zero for several years now). But I doubt seriously this bill is revenue neutral. Truth is the situation is so bad, taxes have to increase and spending have to take deep cuts.

As a quickly given suggestion I would favor a 15%, 28% and 42% in place of 15%,25%,35% for income taxes. This is due to needed rebalancing of the greatly expanded income gap in this country and the need to balance the books. New taxes on energy use and luxury items. Spending cuts would include getting out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Abandoning most of the 730+ bases in the 120 countries we have bases in (unneeded and usually not wanted). Recalling the TARP money. Reducing Medicare fraud. Some other measures that would hurt are also needed like extending retirement age a few years.

Can cahnge back after situation is fixed.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby Cathy » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:00 pm

I have no idea whether this plan would be revenue neutral but I think it could always be tweaked to get to that. I would much rather have an honest increase in bracket rates than deal with the AMT. Many lower income families don't pay taxes after tax credits but some in my income range don't pay much in taxes because of tax dodges.

The few cuts Obama made earlier this year were good. There are more to come but it has to be balanced with avoiding excess job losses.

Of your list I'd say Medicare fraud is an important area. It is terribly common. There is a tremendous amount of waste in medicine both under private insurance and government funded plans. Some fraudulent some not.

The retirement age has been moved up but it will take 25 years to see the full effect of that. I only regret that some groups have lower life expectancy and get less benefit of social security. You could remove the extra exemption for those 65 and over or raise the age or require disability for such an exemption.

I would apply a surtax across the entire spectrum of wage earners to apply to the national debt 1-2% based on the level of debt and it would apply whenever the government is over budget or debt level at a specific level. It would apply the necessary political pressure required to get people excited about the national debt. There was a surtax to fund the Vietnam War (for a short time) of 10% of your tax bill. A surtax of 4.3% to those making over $500,000 has been suggested as a revenue neutral solution to eliminating the alternative minimum tax.
Cathy
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:10 am

Re: Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby Howard V » Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:34 am

It will make no difference what taxes are increased to, if the government [ as it has in the past] continues to spend more money than it has.

The size of the federal government needs to decrease and the total amount of money it spends needs to be cut so it is actually spends less each year until it gets down to a reasonable size and budget.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:14 am

Re: Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby Cathy » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:50 pm

Howard, I don't disagree that budget cuts in some areas are needed, but would like to move this discussion back to the specific Bipartisan Tax Proposal (Gregg-Wyden tax proposal).

Here is another article about the proposal with some forecasts in regard to revenue and losers vs winners. H & R Block would be a big loser and Turbotax would not be helped by it. Those at the lower end would definitely pay less and those on the upper end would pay a bit more according to this article.

Be patient the link does work after a brief ad for the The Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ike/36680/

Be the best informed on your block in regard to this new tax proposal. You'll thank me later. :wink:

I'm going out to turn the compost and the tomato bed. Maybe plant tomatoes the first weekend of spring break. Two weeks from now. Back to work next week with endless days for seven straight days. If the subject drops down the list I'll pull a Fox :brick: and reload it with a new analysis of the proposal.
Cathy
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:10 am

Re: Bipartisan Tax proposal

Postby Cathy » Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:01 pm

On review of news articles related to the Gregg Wyden tax proposal I see that the online gambling interests regard the tax on internet gambling as a positive. It would be a step toward regulation of online gambling. Don't know what I think about that. Certainly state lotteries increased gambling and most of the money spent is by the poor. So legitimizing online gambling probably isn't a good thing, but is it a necessary evil?
Cathy
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:10 am

Re: Eliminating tax free bonds etc.

Postby Cathy » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:16 pm

A favorite tax dodge of the wealthy is tax free bond funds. The reduced interest rates on these bonds make them less attractive to the middle class but provide a large tax benefit for the wealthy. The tax proposal gives a tax credit for these bonds instead. This tax credit would give a more level playing field for those seeking special tax advantaged investments.

The proposal also reduces the corporate tax but cuts out numerous tax loopholes for corporations.

Social Security payments will not be excluded from taxable income. This would most effect those with more generous retirement accounts.
Cathy
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:10 am


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests

cron