The truth is there's only one fair tax, and that's a consumption tax. The true rich, not some doctor who makes $300k a year but has $250k in expenses (not including rent and food) and barely stays above water every year, but the guy who makes $10k a year and gets way more than that doctor gets from untaxed trusts. I'm talking about that guy. It's NOT about income and it never has been. Those guys don't pay taxes. People like Paris Hilton. Her "income" comes from modeling and that gets taxed heavily, but she has a spending account from her daddy that's untaxed. And that money can pay for her lear jet/Gucci bag/cocaine habit. And is untaxed.
See, you set up a consumption tax and the doctor pays LESS tax and Paris Hilton actually pays taxes besides that joke of a modeling career.
Originally Posted by: zombieslayer
This is similar in nature to what some people bitched about Mitt Romney's tax rate. From my understanding of his situation (I am NOT an expert), he doesn't even have an income at the moment, just returns on his investments. Therefore, he pays a much lower rate than you or I, despite making millions and millions and being in the top 0.01% of earners. Adjusting the tax code and "closing loop holes" as they speak of could address this. However, the truly rich will always find ways to manipulate the tax code, because no major changes to truly stop them will happen. If the tax code is altered a bit, they'll simply alter their strategy all the same. It's understandable how many Americans would get irritated that a larger percentage of their money goes to the Government than some of the wealthy, but it's just how it is. I wouldn't expect that to change regardless of what changes Obama, Romney, or any other politician would make. Approximately 60% of Americans said that they favor some tax increases from the exit polling. Whether it's ultimately 'good' or 'bad,' majority wins in a Democracy.
Also, I read somewhere that even if the tax rates are increased on those making over $250,000/year, it would only be on that portion of money OVER $250 k that would be taxed at a higher rate. For example, if one makes $500,000 a year, the first $249,000 would be taxed at the 'lower' rate, and the remainder of the money would be taxed at the few percentage points higher rate (what is it, 37%?). Once again, I'm not tax expert, nor do I pretend to be, but I did find that interesting.
Either way, as the graphic I posted earlier said, ultimately, either major party would have slight differences. Both sides are currently agreeing that that an approach of increased revenue and spending cuts must occur. It seems like that will happen, although perhaps not at the magnitude that some want. If the Government severely cuts multiple programs to cut spending, many people will be affected by that, including people being put out of work. That will raise unemployment and take money out of the economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy may take some money out of the economy as well, but I don't think the effects would be as bad as dismantling entire agencies which many, many people have built their careers around and raise their family on (in addition to often doing really good and important work). It's almost a damned if they do, damned if they don't type plan. Certainly neither option is good for the economy in the short term, and the long term effects are debatable, as well.
I acknowledge that the needed investment isn't going to happen, but I still stand by the principles I made in an earlier post. If America could become significantly more energy independent, it would not only create many more jobs, but also tremendously reduce the power of the "energy countries." Yes, that involves much, much more than drilling for more oil, fracking for natural gas, and burning coal in the long run, but that is certainly a PART of the solution. I have no idea what a revolutionary type of technology might be, but if it could be invented, the World as we know it would change. Sure, many new problems would arise as a result, but it would substantially solve many of the current issues. Unfortunately, the oil companies and those that are slaves to their money don't want that to happen yet.
Yes, companies such as Solyndra are embarrassing and unacceptable, but of the money that was invested in renewable technology recent by the Obama administration, only
8% of them failed. It's a great talking point, but that's obviously not bad, relatively speaking. It's certainly better than many of the other subsidies given to the oil industry and things such as ethanol production, etc. Talk about "picking and choosing winners and losers." It doesn't get much worse than that. Nothing is going to work 100% of the time, including a space program, infrastructure and defense contracts, research programs, etc. etc. What's important is that there is a high success rate and mistakes are investigated and every action possible is taken to prevent those same mistakes from repeating in the future.
If America can't generate some type of novel commodity that the rest of the world can't live without, this debt battle will never end. Hopefully this new "high tech manufacturing" I've heard a lot about in the past year or so will help.