It suggests that people who agree or disagree with some tax policy proposals: (a) do so based on the tax bracket they're in; and (b) aren't being cowboys or men if they happen to advocate a policy that would reduce or maintain their current tax burden.
Is this really what we need in the political debate? More emotion and personal attacks?
No, what we need is better accounting, more numbers-based analysis, and voters who take their duty seriously and as objectively as possible.
My opinion: I think that closing loopholes and eliminating tax breaks across the board (not just for rich people), and generally simplifying the tax code is the best approach. And that nearly everyone should pay some net taxes. I also think stability is important, so we could announce such changes and apply them gradually over a long period of time.
I tend to agree with the concept we should all be paying more taxes here in the US (I was born in Europe where we traditionally have higher taxes in order for more even distribution of wealth and services aka 'socialism')
However her argument that her beautiful place by the beach needs someone to pay for the lifeguards isn't exactly putting the best foot forward on why we all need to contribute more.
I dont have a problem lending a good friend or family member money when they need it. I do have a problem when they take that money and blow it with totally irresponsible behavior. That's the growing sentiment in the US with taxes. People who are paying a lot into the system are watching it go up in smoke in such a gloriously irresponsible manner that they're getting fed up with it. At least I am...
One may think that, but I have had coworkers who have said "I'd rather take my chances, thank you."
>>I do have a problem when they take that money and blow it with totally irresponsible behavior. That's the growing sentiment in the US with taxes.
What are examples of totally irresponsible behavior of the US government spending that you'd like to see changed?
Max Lybbert on July 21st, 2011 9:53 am
"I have no problem with taxes, per se. However, I do get upset when most of the money I pay in tax is spent on things that have nothing to do with governing.
As an example: the city I live in holds several street festivals and parades each year. I’m fine with these, and I’m fine knowing that some of my money is being spent on those.
However, if the city then claimed that it didn’t have enough money to hire police officers, get a new fire truck, fix potholes, clear snow in the winter, or even just to give council members a raise, then I would push for cutting some of those festivals before raising taxes.
When Orange County declared bankruptcy years ago, they managed to simply re-prioritize spending, and emerged from bankruptcy without needing to raise taxes. When the federal government triples spending in a few years, it’s hard to believe that their financial trouble is solely caused by low taxes.
Based on your description of your income taxes, it sounds like you’re in the group that President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Reid and others have declared the “super rich.” And although you don’t qualify for most deductions or exemptions, and although people in your income bracket pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes, you’re in the group that Obama, Biden, Reid and others claim “don’t pay their fair share” and need to pay higher taxes.
You’re welcome to do so: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1120c/ar01.html#d0e94
...and I’ll willingly join you if I’m convinced the money will go toward governing and not, say, federal studies of party behavior: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/pr_Prj_info_desc_dtls.cfm?aid...
25 Corporations That Pay Less Taxes Than You Do
1.) GE - 0 taxes, actually gained 3.2B refund
2.) Google - 2.4%
4.) Goldman Sachs - 0 taxes. actually gained 800B refund
12.) Amazon - 4.3%
18.) Microsoft - 5%
http://www.businesspundit.com/25-corporations-that-pay-less-...
Something being held up by the Republican controlled Congress. Private jet tax breaks and all.
But let's be clear what will happen.
Their profits will immediately drop. They will put up prices in order to stem the decrease in profit. We will all pay a lot more for the same goods we used to pay less for.
And not just when we buy directly from the very same corporations, but b2b companies will be forced to pass on the costs incurred by GE's price increases, etc.
And even things like gas usage, there is flexibility in the demand. There is definitely some driving that has to be done, but people can and do cut back on the amount of travel they take because of gas prices. Also, there are sometimes alternatives to that means of travel too.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that 20 and 30 year-olds in 1940 were saying the same thing.
Btw, $200k in california pays: 33% in federal tax 10% in state tax 7% in ss/medicare 9% in sales tax
that's 60% in taxes (do they get any free higher education or healthcare? yeah I didn't think so). Not to mention the food/living cost is about 10X what it is in many countries in Asia. The only fools in California left are middle class wage earners.
It may be annoying and look really bad but I would rather have a company be taxed on their net earnings over several years than be punished for having fluctuating earnings. (Especially since start-ups tend to lose money for a few years before making profits)
It's also infuriating that for all of the sanctimony, especially that which is assigned to what amounts to a completely arbitrary number (e.g. $200,000), she completely ignores the fact that there is ridiculous, egregious amounts of government fraud & waste.
And to a couple of the specific talking points...
- How is the economy doing in the Spirit Lake Dakota Nation anyway? As mentioned the income is very low there but there is at least one 'government-connected' (one that does 50% of its business with the government) company that is profiting quite well there. Great.
- She says she's making great money (again, with a lot of great government contracts) and lives on the beach in a great place. By her own logic, she's being a d@*%! Why doesn't she commit a much larger percentage of her income to the Spirit Lake Dakota Nation, off of whom she is making all those evil profits. Why doesn't she move there? Is it not good enough for her? By her own logic, total hypocrisy.
Paying taxes is a reality, that's fine. But there are layers and layers of waste that most people just can't abide. If I'm a d&%$ for taking that position, oh well. By the way, I don't make nearly $200k a year.
Demand transparency from your government, not the destruction of government, which does do good work and provide good services to its citizens. (And yes the consequence of diminishing tax revenue on the wealthy – yes 200k$ a year is wealthy – is the diminishment and destruction of services that everyone else relies upon)
Edit:
Sorry i don't want to mischaracterize what you've said (since you actually barely mention taxes). So let me be clearer.
You are making aspersions about this woman, without knowing anything about her business, except the fact that she does government business. If you have a problem with the way that the government disburses contracts, that is a substantially different matter than the tax issue that the article contends with.
Does the author stand to lose if the government cuts back on services? Yes likely so. But without knowing further details, your presumption that her POV is invalid because she takes federal contracts, and that federal contracts are waste and abuse is entirely speculation on your part.