Who said anything about job boosting?
Everyone in this thread that is advocating extending the tax cuts for the top 2%. What other reasons have you seen posted here?
And why wouldn’t they work, people love getting free money. And when the tax breaks are unfunded, that’s all it is, another government handout. Might as well pay people to work, because that’s all it is.
Where I grew up in Canada was notorious for offering massive tax incentives for companies to set up call centers full of low wage jobs. The government would have been better off just giving the cash directly to the employees and letting them stay home.
Why do you attribute it so directly to the [government imposed] mileage requirement? With or without it companies are always going to be looking to manufacture as cheaply as possible. It’s a race to the bottom, are you proposing the US compete with China et al. to be the world leader in low cost production? There is a quality of life that goes with joining that race, is that what you want for the US?
There is no excuse for poorly thought out plans, on either side of the aisle. It seems as if you’re proposing offering deficit funded tax breaks in a variation on that theme.
And this is the point where it has to be reminded that no one is calling for anarchy. It also needs to be pointed out that a huge bulk of taxes are expenses that will happen with or without the government. Garbage collection is the most obvious. Health care is the least obvious. But bother are expenses that a business will incur with or without government involvement.
So one could just as easily turn the question around, at what point is a tax rate too high?
I agree, however with current tax rates at the lowest point in 60 years, talking about the high end seems somewhat irrelevent to this discussion.
You had me until pork. What exactly do you think pork and pet projects are? Your tone suggests that you really have no idea, but are simply spouting partisan rhetoric.
Near where I used to live a $5million bike/pedestrian bridge was built over a busy roadway. It was the direct result of pork barrel politics, our senator’s vote was essentially bought for $5million.
Well, turns out, the bridge is great (although not perfect). It connected a massive series of bike/pedestrian pathways that run throughout the city and are heavily used. That bridge dramatically improved quality of life in the city. It meant jobs during construction. And it looks kind of cool at night.
Now, that trail system represents one of the top 3 reasons we still live here, without it we’d have moved years ago, along with our income and investments. Our employers would have lost out. If the city got worse, they’d have a harder time retaining employees.
Do you see now the circle of life, I mean taxes? Private industry isn’t going to build a multipurpose trail system, government (aka taxes) will. The trails improve quality of life, and make a city more desirable. If the city/state/fed cut business taxes, and then cut funding to programs like those trails, we all end up living in shit.
My personal view is that there is actually a very narrow bandwidth to work with. The low end being what government needs to function and create a livable environment. The high end being the point where industry suffers. Libertarians tend to shrink that bandwidth, and assume it’s further towards zero. Liberals tend to open it up, and assume the high end is much higher than they should.
For that reason, it is VERY relevant to this discussion. Raising taxes right now, while things are bad, is a dumb idea, across the economic spectrum. It’s unlikely that those making more than $250,000 budgeted for the tax cuts to expire. They are not an endless well of revenue, and their welfare needs to be considered in balance with the poor. It is a sound government policy to make the rich happy and content so that they’ll continue to be richer, because the richer they are, the more revenue for the rest of us…
It also seems a bit like giving a child having a tantrum what they want so they won’t take their ball and go home. I was raised that you ignore a child having a tantrum and the last thing you do is just give in.
Were things really that bad during the Clinton era? I didn’t realize that the tax rates then were crippling to industry. Did all business move overseas in the 90s only to move back in the 00s when George gave them his gift?
I honestly feel that this is more a case of Augustus Gloop saying “More More” - rather than anything to do with it being harmful to the economy.
Also, nothing will be touched for the rates on the first 250,000. How could anyone not be able to live on the same percentage of 250,000 that they do now, plus what, 65% of everything above? Is this really enough to make a believable sob story? Its kind of hard to swallow.
Look on the bright side. With lower taxes, you’d have more money to spend,and you could choose to spend it on building walls and gates, and hiring private security to keep the unemployed and crackheads out of your yard after the city’s infrastructure crumbles into dust.
Oddly enough, those are the conditions when the rich leave (aka white flight).
Sort of ironic when you think about it.
Actually that is the though process behind the fair tax proposal by Congressman John Linder.
So thats it then 0 taxes? That really is the end game here? So what then do you think are the repercussions to society with 0 taxes? This is something to strive for in your ideal world?
If tax cuts do not create jobs, there is no justification. Why should 98% percent of taxpayers suffer spending cuts to bestow jobless profits on Amercia’s wealthiest 2%?
I just googled it. It’s a proposal for a consumption tax to replace the income tax. I found this bit in the FAQ:
I can’t help but wonder who he feels is getting short shrift under the current inequity.
wow, You don’t even want to discuss stuff.
It’s designed to streamline the tax system.
Imagine the IRS and all the paperwork associated with it gone.
I’m afraid you’ve got the players and timeline backwards in this.
Canada returned to balanced budgets at the federal level in 1998, during the government of Prime Minister Chrétien and the Liberal Party - I assume they are the “high-tax high-service régime” you’re referring to? On assuming office in 1993, the Liberals led a sustained budget-cutting process, leading to balanced budgets for the first time in 30 years, and continuing well into this decade.
However, with the recession and the perceived need for government infusions of liquidity into the economy, the federal government has slipped back into a deficit, and at the most optomistic predictions, won’t be back to balanced budgets for at least 5 years - so saith the Finance Minister, who’s part of the Conservative government - I assume that’s the “low-tax low-service party” you’re referring to?
The concern, however, is that the new deficit budgets aren’t just temporary - that they actually mark a return to a structural deficit.
See:
Federal Fiscal Policy in Canada: History, Operation, and Trends in the Global Recession
Canada Presents Balanced Budget, the First in Almost 30 Years
Canada hits record deficit, Flaherty says balanced budget over five years away
To be replaced by the paperwork associated with the new tax.
There’s no reason that simplifying the income tax means completely replacing it. The thing that makes it complicated are the masses of rules and exceptions that define what counts as income. So what do some people propose to simplify things? A flat tax; which would replace about half a page of the tax code.
Would a consumption tax be simpler? Possibly, although the devil is in the details. There’d be a hugely convoluted supply chain of collecting the tax at every point of sale in the country. There was an item in the FAQ about people evading the tax by bartering, so they’re responsible for paying the cash equivalent of the tax. Who defines the rules and enforcement for all that?
I’m suspicious of anyone who titles a new propsal as “fair”. And my original question remains, who does he think is suffering the unfairness of the income tax?
This is already done to collect sales taxes for the states, so why do you think collecting a Federal sales tax would be so difficult?
Again, it has already been done. Bartering must currently be declared as income. This would just be changed such that it must be declared as a purchase.
Maybe it wouldn’t be all that difficult, but the Fair Tax site makes it sound like all the tax collecting bureaucracy will be swept away if we change to the Fair Tax. I’m just trying to point out that the tax won’t magically collect itself.
Bartering must be declared as income, and that’s currently overseen by the IRS. Switch to the Fair Tax, and clearly something like the IRS will have to still be around to administer the new rules.