Thread: Taxes/Mandatory Fees - How much is enough?

Originally Posted by ltnt

Vote with you're feet Rick. Simple, I did. Solved everything.

Actually I am trying to convince the wife of that very thing.

Rick

Originally Posted by Trotsky

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by draco888

look at what you are getting for your money though, the finest, most honest, efficient, intelligent elected officials, world class infrastructure, impeccable foreign policy, free press.....the list is endless, why are you complaining? i think you should be making voluntary contributions to the public purse considering such outstanding value for money!

Ahh, yes. That's the only comfort I get, knowing my hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

Regards,

RickThai

The price of invading countries to infest them with your right wing BS

I try not to attack posters at a personal level, but I have to ask, "Is this the best comment you can contribute to this topic????"

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by RickThai

Should the US be like Germany or Greece?

No way- although you (and we) could learn a fair bit from Germany. I think government revenues in Norway & Sweden are ridiculously high btw. Sure, they get a great and well funded social welfare net etc, but at too high a cost if you ask me.

The role and scope of government is a worthy ongoing debate. Both Chomsky and the Republican party agree that the attitude of citizens towards government authority should be 'justify yourself'. But at the end of the day, who is actually talking about expanding government services? Not the Democrats- and Obama has the best record of controlling growth in government expenditure since Eisenhower, although I attribute that considerably more to necessity than Obama. The immediate problem is not ideologocal, it is that government revenues are too low to meet government expenditures, this has been the case for many years and has deteriorated since the GFC. US government debt is already too high, and it threatens the financial solidarity and blue chip reputation of the nation. Positions like ending the temporary tax cuts for the rich, given that US government debt has spiralled since this temporary legislation was enacted, are hardly extreme- au contraire, the opposite position of 'starve the beast' with respect to government revenue are extreme, given that your countries still premier financial rating depends on the government being able to balance it's income and expenditure. A fair amount of taxpayers revenue now does not go to government spending at all- it goes to debt servicing. And you are borrowing more daily.

On a quasi moral note, this is debt that 'we' incurred, and we should not kick the can down the road for the kids to deal with- be that thru' crippling debt repayments or worse still financial collapse, or from slashing the same government services we benefited from, such as education.

Although I see the value in many of your comments, every analysis I have seen indicates that increasing the income taxes for the rich will have almost no effect on the national debt.

I also understand the very rich already pay around 80% or so of all the income tax revenues.

So it would seem that the US just has to stop spending so much period. For example, the President of the US can serve one term and get $450,000.00 pension for life.

Is that reasonable? I don't think so. Presidents (and I think Obama is probably the worst to date), take trips all over the world at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obamas haven't spent over a billion dollars (maybe two or three times that) in his first term.

Anyone think the US has gotten its moneys worth on these trips?

I would like to see a taxpayers group have veto authority on all of the governments expenditures.

RickThai

Originally Posted by sabang

Unless the US introduces a wealth tax, based on assets- and there is no proposal I am aware of for this, you don't actually hand back any wealth as taxation. It is levied on earnings and capital gains only, and capital losses when incurred are deducted from profits made elsewhere. Being from Australia, I paid a good deal more tax on my earnings than a US citizen actually- at least until I moved to HK. Basically, tax from all sectors has got to meet government expenditure, plus in the US and several other countries pay down existing debt. Economic recovery and, longer term, the AHC should help address the deficit but at the end of the day the US citizenry, who at the high earning end benefit from an internationally very low rate of tax, need to do their bit too. A 5% hike in the tax rate for individuals earning over 250K is hardly crippling, and neither is a modest tax hike in corporate taxation. Given the massive wealth inequality in the USD, the temporary exemption from Inheritance tax on ultra wealthy estates should (and will) be dropped too. It is just sensible economic housekeeping.

high marginal rate increases on high earners usually decreasing the tax take.