Score one for the voters

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by painter

Merry Christmas to one and all. Much good health and happiness in the year ahead.

The same to you Mam.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Oh, I dunno. There was a chart in our local paper today that showed that on average the new tax bill as agreed upon by the GOP and The Whitehouse would save taxpayers in the $200k to $500k bracket a whopping $1,800. And that it would cost those in the $500k to $1mil bracket $45 per annum, due to the reinstatement of the Estate Tax.(On average.)

Wooooeeeeee! Hold onto your hat, Nellie, were gonna create us some jobs now! YeeHaw!

I won't have to pay an extra $346 per annum. A whole $6.65 a week. Awesome! Now I can afford that summer villa in Tuscany! Thank you, Tea Party! If it hadn't been for you I would have ended up having to eat my dog.
And she's a good dog, I wouldn't have been happy about that.

What a f**kin' joke. You can stick your Bush Tax Cuts up your pooper for all I care.

Dave

Oh, and by the way, taxes on those making less than $20k per year will rise slightly due to the expiration of the "Earned Income Credit"-----Man, the GOPs concern for the poor is heartwarming, gotta tell ya.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Oh, I dunno. There was a chart in our local paper today that showed that on average the new tax bill as agreed upon by the GOP and The Whitehouse....

First, lets dispense with the idea that somehow this bill was somehow the result of the minority holding the majority hostage:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ws_BlogsModule

"The bill goes to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature after the House overcame persistent liberal opposition and passed it with an unexpectedly large bipartisan majority of 277-148. The measure passed the Senate earlier in the week also with an overwhelming majority."

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

...would save taxpayers in the $200k to $500k bracket a whopping $1,800. And that it would cost those in the $500k to $1mil bracket $45 per annum, due to the reinstatement of the Estate Tax.(On average.)

Everybody benefited to some extent. But the number of those not paying any taxes on an annual basis will decrease.

"Middle-income Americans fared best from the deal, due in large part to the new payroll-tax holiday, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Those with the largest average gain in after-tax income, compared with current tax policies, earn between $35,000 and $64,000. They gain about $613, or 0.9% of their income.

Lower-income earners will benefit from continued expanded availability of the child credit and other breaks. But the substitution of Mr. Obama's Making Work Pay break—a tax subsidy for lower income people—with a payroll-tax holiday will be a net loser for them.

Higher-income people took the most cash from the deal. The average gain for households with $500,000 to $1 million in income was $3,859 compared to current tax levels. Democrats had wanted tax rates for this group to rise."

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Wooooeeeeee! Hold onto your hat, Nellie, were gonna create us some jobs now! YeeHaw!

I won't have to pay an extra $346 per annum. A whole $6.65 a week. Awesome! Now I can afford that summer villa in Tuscany! Thank you, Tea Party! If it hadn't been for you I would have ended up having to eat my dog.
And she's a good dog, I wouldn't have been happy about that.

What a f**kin' joke. You can stick your Bush Tax Cuts up your pooper for all I care.

Dave

Glad you like it.

The REAL two-fold challenge now begins. It will befall the new Congress to make the tax changes enacted this month more permanent, or to at least agree to and enact a long - term tax policy that makes personal and business decisions based on tax policy far more predictable. The other challenge will be to create an environment in Congress of true fiscal restraint. I won't hold my breath, but this HAS to happen.

[d-ray657]

I have to say that I am becoming more convinced that we need to jettison this tax code and replace it with something far simpler and with far fewer deductions and credits. It would be much more honest to bring in a predictable (for both payer and payee) revenue and to directly fund programs that congress deems socially desirable and economically feasible.

I also believe in a program by program review to determine what is redundant and what is effective. This would of course include the defense budget. That kind of review, however, would not be cheap - it would consume huge amounts of personnel hours.

We don't, however, need to start cutting with a chainsaw - more like a garden weeder - dig out the weeds and leave the healthy plants.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

The tax changes enacted this month will do NOTHING. They are a BULLSHIT waste of everybodies time.

$3,800 to a millionaire is pocket change, girlfriend. It will create ZERO jobs. ZERO.

You can take your lousy 0.9% and your party and SHOVE them both. They are both useless.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The tax changes enacted this month will do NOTHING. They are a BULLSHIT waste of everybodies time.

$3,800 to a millionaire is pocket change, girlfriend. It will create ZERO jobs. ZERO.

You can take your lousy 0.9% and your party and SHOVE them both. They are both useless.

Dave

I love you too, Blue.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I have to say that I am becoming more convinced that we need to jettison this tax code and replace it with something far simpler and with far fewer deductions and credits. It would be much more honest to bring in a predictable (for both payer and payee) revenue and to directly fund programs that congress deems socially desirable and economically feasible.

I also believe in a program by program review to determine what is redundant and what is effective. This would of course include the defense budget. That kind of review, however, would not be cheap - it would consume huge amounts of personnel hours.

We don't, however, need to start cutting with a chainsaw - more like a garden weeder - dig out the weeds and leave the healthy plants.

Regards,

D-Ray

Wow, you and I can agree on this.

Where we may or may not agree is what the tax code should look like, or what the proper function of a tax code should be.

IMHO, it is impossible for a government to enact a tax system that influences economic or social policy without eroding individual freedom. Nor, do I think such a system is desirable for a host of reasons. Therefore, the simpler the system, and the more such a system encourages the efficient private sector use of capital, the better. A tax system that encourages economic growth, and is designed to benefit from that growth, is ideal.

The possible answer may be a system that balances taxes on both wealth creation and consumption, yet discourages neither. There will always be some level of tax that discourages a particular activity. However, if the threshold it both reasonable and predictable over the long term, demand will typically drive the ship. Currently, federal taxes on capital formation and utilization or high, and minimal on consumption. May be an area of opportunity.

Just a thought....

[Charles]

Well, I'll take my crummy .09% break...I can apply it towards the devaluation of my green stamps.

They're gonna get it one way or another.

Chas

[noonereal]

If they wanted to both help people struggling and stimulate the economy they would have used this one trillion give away to send a check out to those on Social Security. This is the second year in a row their was no COLA and no one actually believes the price of goods the elderly and disabled use has not risen.

This was just a totally irresponsible act by hypocritical people.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by whell

Wow, you and I can agree on this.

Where we may or may not agree is what the tax code should look like, or what the proper function of a tax code should be.

IMHO, it is impossible for a government to enact a tax system that influences economic or social policy without eroding individual freedom. Nor, do I think such a system is desirable for a host of reasons. Therefore, the simpler the system, and the more such a system encourages the efficient private sector use of capital, the better. A tax system that encourages economic growth, and is designed to benefit from that growth, is ideal.

The possible answer may be a system that balances taxes on both wealth creation and consumption, yet discourages neither. There will always be some level of tax that discourages a particular activity. However, if the threshold it both reasonable and predictable over the long term, demand will typically drive the ship. Currently, federal taxes on capital formation and utilization or high, and minimal on consumption. May be an area of opportunity.

Just a thought....

OMG Whell, you realize that part of your argument is based upon some simplistic notion which was written on a cocktail napkin?

Perhaps Wanniski should have simplified it further as it appears to be beyond the grasp of so many!!!

Chas

BTW, I've just laid in a new stock of smart ass pills, just in case anyone wonders.