Taxation IV

[Brandon H]

While we are talking taxes though I would throw this one out there.

[jokerman]

Option 2 only

[A18]

1, 2, 3

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

What A18 said

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

3.  Everyone else needs to pay more taxes so I can enjoy more government services., but I pay too many taxes.

[opebo]

#2 only, obviously.

[The Dowager Mod]

People poorer are too highly taxed.

[DanielX]

1 and 2. I didn't say 3 because I'm a dependent and pay less then I get out of the tax system, for now at least; in 10 years it'll be another story.

Everyone pays too high taxes, except those who pay none.

[Jake]

I'd say 2 and 3 to a degree. People earning less than me certainly should have their taxes cut and I should also.

[MODU]

The tax rate on everyone is too high, primarily due to the rediculously high number of deductions and loop holes in our current system.

[TeePee4Prez]

2 and 3

[Nym90]

Number 2.

[dazzleman]

It's really not possible to give an answer to this question.

I don't think I'm taxed too highly, necessarily, though I do favor lower taxes and lower government spending in general.

Poorer people don't pay much of an income tax at all, so it's hard to argue that they're taxed too highly.  One can argue that the wealthy don't pay enough, but that's a different argument, and one that I don't necessarily agree with either.

The American people want more services from government than they are willing to pay for.  That's the central problem.

[Nym90]

It's really not possible to give an answer to this question.

I don't think I'm taxed too highly, necessarily, though I do favor lower taxes and lower government spending in general.

Poorer people don't pay much of an income tax at all, so it's hard to argue that they're taxed too highly.  One can argue that the wealthy don't pay enough, but that's a different argument, and one that I don't necessarily agree with either.

The American people want more services from government than they are willing to pay for.  That's the central problem.

True, although the question didn't specify only income taxes. As a percentage of their income, poorer people obviously always pay more in sales tax than do the wealthy, with the possible exception of the very poorest people (who might pay almost no sales tax if they buy very little other than food from grocery stores).

There's also the matter of payroll taxes, of course, which have an upper bound to them, and aren't refundable for people of any income.

Agreed on your last point. A balanced budget sounds good to people in theory, of course, until they start realizing the sacrifices they will have to make. Though most polls on the subject, for what they are worth, seem to indicate that people would prefer a balanced budget to tax cuts if given the choice.

[dazzleman]

It's really not possible to give an answer to this question.

I don't think I'm taxed too highly, necessarily, though I do favor lower taxes and lower government spending in general.

Poorer people don't pay much of an income tax at all, so it's hard to argue that they're taxed too highly.  One can argue that the wealthy don't pay enough, but that's a different argument, and one that I don't necessarily agree with either.

The American people want more services from government than they are willing to pay for.  That's the central problem.

True, although the question didn't specify only income taxes. As a percentage of their income, poorer people obviously always pay more in sales tax than do the wealthy, with the possible exception of the very poorest people (who might pay almost no sales tax if they buy very little other than food from grocery stores).

There's also the matter of payroll taxes, of course, which have an upper bound to them, and aren't refundable for people of any income.

Agreed on your last point. A balanced budget sounds good to people in theory, of course, until they start realizing the sacrifices they will have to make. Though most polls on the subject, for what they are worth, seem to indicate that people would prefer a balanced budget to tax cuts if given the choice.

I am deeply disappointed with the budget situation, and the fiscal stewardship of the Bush administration.

I don't think the Democrats would be any better, but I'm disappointed nonetheless.

I don't favor further tax cuts unless and until the budget situation is brought under control.  In theory, maybe the best thing for the country is a centrist Democratic president with a Republican congress.

But I always recoil from the thought of the Democrats having control of anything.....it's just a reflexive thing.

With respect to payroll taxes, I don't know how valid it is to throw them directly into the mix, since they exist for a specified purpose, and the ceiling on the tax amounts paid is supposed to be reflective of the ceiling that exists on the benefits a person can get from those programs.  They are not supposed to be flat-out income transfer programs.

I think liberals who push lifting the income ceiling on social security tax ought to be more mindful of the political consequences of doing that.  That will lead to declining support for the program by upper income people, whose return on their 'investment' in the program just took a huge hit.

[Nym90]

It's really not possible to give an answer to this question.

I don't think I'm taxed too highly, necessarily, though I do favor lower taxes and lower government spending in general.

Poorer people don't pay much of an income tax at all, so it's hard to argue that they're taxed too highly.  One can argue that the wealthy don't pay enough, but that's a different argument, and one that I don't necessarily agree with either.

The American people want more services from government than they are willing to pay for.  That's the central problem.

True, although the question didn't specify only income taxes. As a percentage of their income, poorer people obviously always pay more in sales tax than do the wealthy, with the possible exception of the very poorest people (who might pay almost no sales tax if they buy very little other than food from grocery stores).

There's also the matter of payroll taxes, of course, which have an upper bound to them, and aren't refundable for people of any income.

Agreed on your last point. A balanced budget sounds good to people in theory, of course, until they start realizing the sacrifices they will have to make. Though most polls on the subject, for what they are worth, seem to indicate that people would prefer a balanced budget to tax cuts if given the choice.

I am deeply disappointed with the budget situation, and the fiscal stewardship of the Bush administration.

I don't think the Democrats would be any better, but I'm disappointed nonetheless.

I don't favor further tax cuts unless and until the budget situation is brought under control.  In theory, maybe the best thing for the country is a centrist Democratic president with a Republican congress.

But I always recoil from the thought of the Democrats having control of anything.....it's just a reflexive thing.

The moderate Dem President/GOP Congress combo worked pretty well from a budgetary standpoint in the 1990's. Sometimes gridlock is good.

Regarding whether or not the Democrats would be better, it's impossible to say for sure, of course, but the 1993 deficit reduction plan that I believe sent us on the way to the surpluses of the late 90's was passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

[dazzleman]

The moderate Dem President/GOP Congress combo worked pretty well from a budgetary standpoint in the 1990's. Sometimes gridlock is good.

Regarding whether or not the Democrats would be better, it's impossible to say for sure, of course, but the 1993 deficit reduction plan that I believe sent us on the way to the surpluses of the late 90's was passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

But I suspect that if the Democrats really had control, they would increase spending to the point where the situation would be just as bad as, or worse than, the current situation.

[Nym90]

The moderate Dem President/GOP Congress combo worked pretty well from a budgetary standpoint in the 1990's. Sometimes gridlock is good.

Regarding whether or not the Democrats would be better, it's impossible to say for sure, of course, but the 1993 deficit reduction plan that I believe sent us on the way to the surpluses of the late 90's was passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

But I suspect that if the Democrats really had control, they would increase spending to the point where the situation would be just as bad as, or worse than, the current situation.

Perhaps. My only point was that past evidence of the last time when Democrats did have complete control shows that this did not occur.

[dazzleman]

The moderate Dem President/GOP Congress combo worked pretty well from a budgetary standpoint in the 1990's. Sometimes gridlock is good.

Regarding whether or not the Democrats would be better, it's impossible to say for sure, of course, but the 1993 deficit reduction plan that I believe sent us on the way to the surpluses of the late 90's was passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

But I suspect that if the Democrats really had control, they would increase spending to the point where the situation would be just as bad as, or worse than, the current situation.

Perhaps. My only point was that past evidence of the last time when Democrats did have complete control shows that this did not occur.

It was too short a time to really judge.  Aside from the 1993-94 period, the last time the Democrats had full control was 1977-81, and it was a different party then, with many southern Democrats effectively aligning themselves with the Republicans on fiscal matters.

With a Republican president and Democratic congress, it seems that the Democrats become particularly irresponsible in their spending proposals, so I definitely fear that combination.  They know they can pander to their interest groups, and rely on the president to veto much of what they pass, as President Ford in particular did.

[Nym90]

The moderate Dem President/GOP Congress combo worked pretty well from a budgetary standpoint in the 1990's. Sometimes gridlock is good.

Regarding whether or not the Democrats would be better, it's impossible to say for sure, of course, but the 1993 deficit reduction plan that I believe sent us on the way to the surpluses of the late 90's was passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

But I suspect that if the Democrats really had control, they would increase spending to the point where the situation would be just as bad as, or worse than, the current situation.

Perhaps. My only point was that past evidence of the last time when Democrats did have complete control shows that this did not occur.

It was too short a time to really judge.  Aside from the 1993-94 period, the last time the Democrats had full control was 1977-81, and it was a different party then, with many southern Democrats effectively aligning themselves with the Republicans on fiscal matters.

With a Republican president and Democratic congress, it seems that the Democrats become particularly irresponsible in their spending proposals, so I definitely fear that combination.  They know they can pander to their interest groups, and rely on the president to veto much of what they pass, as President Ford in particular did.

True, extreme members of both parties kind of like gridlock because of the fact that it gives them this luxury. Republicans did a lot of the same things under Clinton, as did Democrats under Reagan and Bush 41. It also gives both parties a scapegoat to blame if something goes wrong.

[dazzleman]

True, extreme members of both parties kind of like gridlock because of the fact that it gives them this luxury. Republicans did a lot of the same things under Clinton, as did Democrats under Reagan and Bush 41. It also gives both parties a scapegoat to blame if something goes wrong.

I always disliked divided government in the past for that reason.  It seemed to foster irresponsible behavior by the non-executive party.

While it seems to have worked well in the 1990s, that was a period without any major APPARENT challenges that needed to be addressed (not really true, but that's the subject of another discussion).

For a more challenging era such as the one we're in now, I'm not sure how well divided government would actually work, but we may find out come November.