Like I keep saying, the Democrats are the party of fiscal, if not conservatism, then at least reasonableness: NY Times: "It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and — as a little bonus — won deep estate tax cuts for America’s wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely. That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party’s one real priority is tax cuts — despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here’s some more:" Link I just don't see how you vote for these guys.
They should let the cuts expire for all. By the dems extending them for a select the republicans fought the cuts for all. They are simply being equitable x
Riiight, they were just trying to be equitable. They love fairness. That's why billionaires deserved tax cuts (that they didnt want and dont need) as much as you and I. If you believe all they wanted was fairness, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Agree on the OP's hypocrisy, but let's be real here... Is the Bridge of Fairness a "shovel-ready" project? How's the Stimulus plan working? Sour grapes, NYT.
I'm no fan of the republicans, and the lame duck congress wasn't exactly made up of people who were elected in November. I have some hope that the tea party oriented guys will stand by their campaign rhetoric and will force the republicans to bring some sanity to the spending and borrowing.
I've had this idea for taxation for a long time, since the 1980s at least. It basically goes like this: A 20% flat tax on all transactions, including borrowing money. A $4,000 per person flat tax refund. This means a family of 4 gets back $16,000. The flat tax is regressive, sure. Poor people have to pay that tax on their meds and basic foodstuffs. But the $4K refund they get back covers a lot of the tax, if not all. In fact, many people will see a net gain in cash from the refund vs. what they pay in taxes - a negative income tax. The refund is progressive. A person making $10K/year just got a 40% raise or 10 months rent, while a person making $1M sees the $4K as part of a mortgage payment or something. The effect is to redistribute wealth, which the lefties seem to want. The downside is that it doesn't allow the lefties to reach out and touch people from far away by mandating behavior to get the tax break (refund). The tax is on consumption. Rich people may hoard their money, but what good is it to have a lot of money if you don't spend it? Surely the 20% tax on a Cadillac or BMW or boat or big home or stock trade is going to get them to pay their fair share. The 20% rate is probably too high, as it would add to the price of everything since the ore mine would be charged 20% for selling the ore to the steel mill which would be charged 20% for selling the steel to the auto makers. The right number might be in the 7% to 14% range. The $4K would also replace a slew of social programs. Government is going to have to shrink by about 50% to be able to afford paying the refunds. Why do you need welfare programs if you're paying people this kind of cash?
You are going to give the poor $4000 per year, and take $800 of that back in tax, and you wonder why you need welfare programs? barfo
"Flat tax" is usually used to mean income tax, but upon inspection of your wording, I now see that you were using it for value-added tax. Does this proposed VAT replace income tax or supplement it? If the latter, Republicans and most Democrats would call it a tax increase (though the $4000 exemption might make it revenue-neutral).
