I'd forgotten about Gingrich's 'privatize school lunches' idea.

What I noticed early-on about conservatives is they seem very jealous and angry about any form of assistance to the poor. they can get more worked up about a handful of 'welfare queens' getting a few thousand extra a month than a defense contractor getting a multi-million dollar windfall.

The latest theme is that if taxes are cut, charitable giving will go up and all wil be well. But if you look at the rate of charitable giving in this country, that's just another conservative myth.

Moneyguy is right. AMT is the secret revenue-booster in the mix. It allows "published" tax rates to drop while actual tax rates paid inch upward. Bulletin to Island: AMT primarily affects the top brackets.

My 2002 taxes were late, and I canculated them online with Quicken's 1040 service and nearly fell out of my chair at the impact of AMT. I went to a professional tax preparer and he worked his way around to avoid AMT and saved me $47K (I did well in '02). So if you think the AMT is a minor part of the tax code, pray you don't run into it.

Drug the poor!!!!!!

God, what cynicism!!! (or was that sarcasm? I hope so)

I'm not sure anyone is against helping the poor (i'm certainly not) and I resent that simplistic implication from the tax-and-spend crowd. It's HOW to help the poor that is in question. The government confiscating MY money at gunpoint and redistributing it amidst a sea of bureaucratic red tape (read: "expense") is a method I do not agree with and a method that is a monumental failure. I willing contribute lots of money to various charities I believe in. Unfortunately, the government confiscates half my money, so there's not a whole lot leftover to hand out ....

The takers now far outnumber the producers in the US thanks to the policies of the past 50 years, so any hope for reform is slim. This is great news for politicians who make careers out of spending other peoples money. Not so good news for those of us out in the trenches actually earning it. And even worse news for the generations of takers who vote these politicians into office - eventually there will be no more money to take, folks. :(

I have a simple solution to all this. Since voting is just a thinly-veiled pretense for choosing people to count & spend our confiscated money, it should be pro-rated according to the amount of money the government confiscates from each of us, right? You don't pay taxes? Ahhh, sorry, no vote for you. You pay $300,000 in taxes each year? Step right to the front of the line sir, you get to vote 10 times today! ;)

It's all very well to object to the wastage in Govt, but there needs to be more constructive criticism than "take the money away and they won't spend it".

I had another think about this topic overnight, and what occured to me, after reading about the widening gap between the rich and the poor (in the US) in our local paper, is the following.

The US undoubtably enjoys strong economic growth, thanks to abundant resources, open commerce, and (most importantly) a national attitude that fosters success and wealth creation.

However, the bottom half of your population by and large does not enjoy much, if any, benefit from this growth - the top half (and the top 5% even more so) appear to gain the lion's share of the improvement in GDP. Basically, while it is possible to go from poor to middle class, or from poor or middle class to rich, it is easier to go from rich to richer. The US (and all other countries to whom this applies) as the land of opportunity is very definitely split into those who can and cannot take part.

The increasing top end welath is the primary reason that those top earners pay a continually higher percentage of the total taxes. Put simply - their annual earnings are increasing very fast (compared to low income people who would see a few percent above inflation if they are lucky).

Given this, I personally am happy about the wealthy paying the lions share of the tax.

This is part II of the argument (whether a progressive tax system is fair). As I said above, I think Part I is what amount of tax is required to run the country.

By the way, it is interesting when you look at the actual breakdown of govt spending - consider those aspects of govt spending which apply to you, then those that don't --> you might be surprised at how little the amount you object to is.

I'm guessing you guys primarily object to the ~$200b of "Income Support Programs" (see this CBO link).

This is < 10% of the federal budget. If you eliminated 10% of this funding (lets say that equates to the number of people screwing the system and wastage), then you save about $20b, or 2.6% of income taxes. This might drop your average tax rate by 1%.

Now if you knocked 10% off the $500b set aside for the military...

I've seen studies that show the efficiency of the government is quite comparable to private enterprise.

But it's very popular in some circles just to keep repeating the cliches without ever examining them.

Cam is right. Maybe Anna is coaching him (just kidding).

Anyhoo, some of you have been whining about "class warfare." Is there somebody out there manufacturing this, or is this really a social movement? I mean, I think it was Karl Marx who said that, once the gap between the haves and the have-nots gets sufficiently wide, there will inevitably be a revolution. Of course, then the question is whether a violent revolution is really necessary in a democracy. Interesting question I think. There is no question whatsoever that Cam's observation is correct, at least in that the rich are getting richer, and the poor just hope for as much buying power (after inflation) this year as they had last year. The gap is widening, and I think it is widening at an increasing rate. We're going to test Marx's theory, that much seems clear.

The the efficiency of federal government ?

btw, did those "studies" happen to be a government studies?

:D :eek: :D

A sales tax is also a fair way of making the rich pay their share since basic subsistance items like food would be exempt and the rich spend more money on non neccessities than do the poor.

350 - I reckon you will find that the effort required to administer the system (in separating out what is and isn't a "necessity") would render the system expensive. Plus, it can end up being pretty regressive (depending on where that levels sits).

Undoubtedly, anyone (especially the wealthy) benefit to the extent they save and invest (which is good).

If the exemptions are only limited to basic items needed by everyone for day to day life and not politically selected it would be pretty simple. Have you seen the size of the existing US tax code?

Cite ONE. Post the link, scan the pages, do whatever you have to do.

Take as long as you want. You aren't going to find one, because it doesn't exist, unless your "study" decides to compare the Postal Service to the Orange County derivatives desk.

Your suggestion transcends even YOUR usual level of specious garbage.

p.s. Good luck with the Audit.

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with threefiddy.

Our tax code is a MONSTER.

many states have sales tax on non-food items . ..seems to work fine.

That idea makes sense. Now, I know it's about as original as Al Sharpton's plan for a Flat Tax (remember THAT?) for you to propose that, but occasionally you stumble across a good idea.

The reduction of a couple hundred billion dollars of "compliance complexity" is one desirable aspect.

But the other is, you don't consume, you don't pay tax. I assume you would exempt things like food, housing and transportation, right? GREAT! That's about 75% of my household budget as a New Yorker! The rest goes into my savings account or into equity investment in small-cap growth companies, so I wouldn't pay any taxes at all!

Bring it on!

Oh wait, wouldn't that remove your capacity for SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE? What about JEALOUSY or REVENGE or the sense that SOMEBODY is BETTER OFF and they have to PAY their FAIR SHARE? You wouldn't be able to PUNISH me for going a couple hundred grand in debt to attend grad school, so I could live in a 250 square foot apartment in Hell's Kitchen to become one of America's RICH!

It's pretty easy to sit back and talk about this stuff in the rhetorical abstract, but until you've felt what it's like to work 100 hours a week and be saddled with 38% federal, 8.6% state and 4% local income tax, along with 8.6% sales tax and property taxes, you don't have ANY IDEA about progressive taxation. STAY at home in your air-conditioned suburban homes and bemoan how "the rich" are really making out great . . .

I am beginning to understand how Tabs got to be Tabs.

most of the people I know I just happy to be working, paying their bills, and staying healthy, much less owning homes or getting a tax break.

there are a few that I know though that just bought million dollar homes and drive new Benz's and those are the ones I hear complaining about the gubnit and how much they are being cheated.

The sales tax would probably need to be exempt on some other stuff too (utilities - easy enough? clothing - extremely difficult. Are there other household items - then it gets difficult? some countries exempt non-luxury food only, etc? what other services should be untaxed? does transportation mean a car? a new car? a car of only a certain value? petrol? repairs? medical care? a bed? a king size bed? school supplies?).

Plus, if you need to raise the best part of $1 trillion then the tax will have to be a high percentage... probably at least 20%, maybe more.

See - http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/nipa_underlying/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=19&FirstYear=2003&Last Year=2004&Freq=Qtr

I reckon you could easily trim out a half of those expenditures as ones which low income people should avoid tax on. Leaves maybe $4 trillion taxable expenditures...

If you want $750b of income tax out of potentially only $4t, that's getting close to 20%.

I think the taxation on vehicles and transportation should be directly corrolated to their gas mileage and environmental impact.

For example, public transporation should be untaxed and a low emissions vehicle should be taxed at a lower rate than a hummer.

Here in florida all food items you find in a grocery store are exempt, but prepared food is taxed.

I also think all services should be taxed unless we are talking water or electric. If we get into the realm of trying to decide what special services should be exempt we will quickly find ourselves in another mess like the current tax system where what is exempt is directly related to the political clout of those asking for the exemptions.

I totally agree, but the simpler the system (and less open to abuse), the more likely it is to be regressive and fail to achieve the desired goal...

What do you think the Gas Tax is a proxy for?