This is an archived forum only.
The discussion continues at the Not News Forums.

  This Is Not News Forums
  Public Policy
  Tax Facts and Fair Shares (May 2001)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Tax Facts and Fair Shares (May 2001)
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
posted 05-09-2001 04:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Thomer   Click Here to Email Dave Thomer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This month's Public Policy story is now online.

Pattie Gillett
True Believer
posted 05-10-2001 09:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Pattie Gillett   Click Here to Email Pattie Gillett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dave, your piece is more timely than your probably realize. Sometime during May, we "celebrate" Tax Relief Day, which is the day the folks in charge of mildly interesting factoids say is the day the average American worker will have earned the percentage of his/her annual salary that he/she will pay to the government in taxes. I'm not sure which date it is but your local wisecracking morning radio show host will probably tell you when it is officially upon us.
I hate this day. This is the day I have to listen to certain people kvetch about how their hard-earned dollars are going to support wasteful welfare programs etc., etc. Not that I don't hear that in the days leading up to April 15th, Tax Relief Day is worse, it's the poorly made sequel to Tax Day and it's enough to make we want to stay in bed.

As a liberal Democrat, "certain people" probably aren't too happy to listen me on this day or for that matter, whenever a discussion about taxes crops up. You see, many people don't like it when you point out things like the government subsidization of home ownership or other such social spending classes. To point it out in that context would be to imply that they were not "entitled" to them as "hard working Americans."

Look, I'm not saying these programs are wrong, I'm just saying that its hypocritical to say that taxes going to welfare programs are wrong while the tax dollars that subsidize mortgages and home equity loans are not. (I'm not even going to talk about tax dollars going to "corporate welfare" because my husband is chomping at the bit to be the one who gets that ball rolling. Don't say I never gave ya anything, Hon.)

For goodness sake, you want to talk about fairness and redistribution? Tax dollars that go to feed people vs. the tax subsidized home equity loans that many middle class people use to purchase new cars or take vacations (at the urging of banks)? Give me a break.

With regards to tax reform points in the article, those are some very interesting proposals.

Point by point:

quote:
1) Relieve between 40 million and 50 million households of the need to file tax returns.

Certainly possible, and sensible - it probably costs more to process those returns than the government nets in revenue.

quote:
2) Cut the top rate from 39.6% to 30% and tax capital gains as ordinary income. Lowering the top rate would raise economic activity and reduce tax avoidance.

Tax capital gains as ordinary income? Where was this one during the big boom a couple years ago?

quote:
3) Raise the standard deduction significantly.

Can we get a "hell, yeah?" I think the only people who would hate this one would be accountants who charge by the hour.

quote:
4) Confine the alternative minimum tax to operators of real tax shelters by drastically raising the exemption and indexing it for inflation.

5) Remove the restrictions on itemized deductions and personal exemptions that affect high-income taxpayers.


My income is not large enough nor are my finances complex enough for me to have experience with these changes so in a word, huh?

quote:
6) Make the tax credits for children, child care, education and adoption completely refundable

Double "Hell, yeah"

quote:
7) Consolidate and simplify all IRAs and related plans into one account with simple and clear contribution and withdrawal rules.

I would do my end-zone dance for this one, perhaps after Congress finishes deciding whether we can make larger contributions, they'll tackle this.

[Edited to add in the proposals in question for easy reference.]

[This message has been edited by Pattie Gillett (edited 05-15-2001).]

Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
posted 05-15-2001 10:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Thomer   Click Here to Email Dave Thomer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What I really like about these proposals is that they take the intelligent, appealing part of the flat tax argument -- "Something must be done about these tax laws" -- and combine them with a progressive/redistributive core so that you don't get a bunch of millionaires paying a 17 percent tax, which is a) ludicrously unfair in my eyes and b) a sure-fire way to bring us back to Reagan-era deficits even faster than GW's trying to get us there.

Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
posted 05-25-2001 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Thomer   Click Here to Email Dave Thomer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Looks like the Senate and House have struck a deal on a tax cut/stimulus package. The estate tax will be repealed; there goes one of the more significant redistributive elements of the tax code. The moderate Republicans in the Senate were able to keep certain low-income credits in the bill, and to keep them at least partially refundable. (Conservative Republicans don't like refundable tax credits, because if a credit is refundable, it means that a low-income filer who pays no income tax is entitled to receive a refund check if the credit reduces her tax liability to a negative number.)

It also looks like taxpayers can expect an immediate and fairly sizable refund check this summer as part of a stimulus package. Not sure how I feel about that. I want to see the national debt paid down in order to keep interest rates low because in the long run I think that's vital to economic security. But if a few extra bucks helps people out this summer, maybe it can pay for itself in the long run. I hope so.

Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
posted 06-14-2001 11:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Thomer   Click Here to Email Dave Thomer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One thing that tightening up the gap between tax rates might do is widen the gap in wealth between the rich and the poor, since the wealthy might wind up paying less in income tax. (On the other hand, if their deductions are cut enough, they may pay more.) I'm wondering, should reducing that disparity, in and of itself, be a goal, or should we only be concerned with the disparity to the extent that it interferes with other things?

(For anyone with an interest in British politics, this BBC interview with Tony Blair may be of interest on this point.)

Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
posted 02-21-2003 05:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Thomer   Click Here to Email Dave Thomer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OK, we're back for another round with this, as President Bush is trying to make the 2001 tax package permanent in the name of stimulus.

Can anyone out there provide me with some solid evidence that tax cuts over the next decade will provide any substantial stimulus now? This is not a rhetorical question. I just can not wrap my head aroudn the concept.

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | This Is Not News Home | Privacy Statement

All message board posts are copyright their respective posters.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a