Where are the Fiscal Conservatives? GOP Tax Bill Adds $1.7T to Debt

[NightFox]

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

I wish that was the case but unfortunately according to SCOTUS it's not ..

"it may be said generally that the equal protection clause means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under similar circumstances, Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 293, and that it applies to the exercise of all the powers of the state which can affect the individual or his property, including the power of taxation. County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385, 388-399; The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722, 733. It does not, however, forbid classification; and the power of the state to classify for purposes of taxation is of wide range and flexibility, provided always, that the classification "must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation" -- LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COLEMAN, AUDITOR. SCOTUS (1928)

 

[AntonToo]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

....seriously? That is your proof that he "CAME OUT AND SAID OBAMACARE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL"????

I never said "Obamacare was designed to fail" you did... what I actually said was "Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul," and that is what Dr. Emmanuel said as well

HE DID NOT SAY THAT - YOU ARE STRAIGHT LYING OR ARE INSANE.

 

[NightFox]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax.

Nope, Dividends & repatriated overseas earnings are subject to double taxation and if the GOP HoR gets its way SALT will be a 3rd example of it.

What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern,

You're joking right? Following your logic deductions shouldn't exist at all since they're all based on costs, why is that you want to single out costs relating to State and Local taxes? Do you just arbitrarily want to punish people in high tax localities because you don't like them or something? One would think that a conservative would be completely against taxing money that the income earner already forked over to government but I guess my understanding of conservatism needs to be updated......

federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.
.

See Post #181 and the SCOTUS decision that explains why you're wrong.

 

[MadChemist]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Is there anyone who would argue that increasing our debt is a good thing ?

 

[OKTexas]

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

You tax where the money is

Can't get blood from a stone

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

Every person is taxed the same

Every dollar is not taxed the same

Yet the 16th says it's the income that is taxable, not the person. A dollar is the property of it's owner, how can you tax the same property differently and justify it?


.

 

[NightFox]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

....seriously? That is your proof that he "CAME OUT AND SAID OBAMACARE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL"????

I never said "Obamacare was designed to fail" you did... what I actually said was "Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul," and that is what Dr. Emmanuel said as well

HE DID NOT SAY THAT - YOU ARE STRAIGHT FUCKING LYING OR ARE INSANE.

LOL, Post #131..... apparently you are unaware of how to scroll back through a thread, you don't understand English or are just allergic to honesty, if I had to guess based on what I've seen from you so far I'd say it's all three.

But you're more than welcome to cite the post # where I said "Obamacare was designed to fail"... happy hunting.

Ciao

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

....seriously? That is your proof that he "CAME OUT AND SAID OBAMACARE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL"????

I never said "Obamacare was designed to fail" you did... what I actually said was "Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul," and that is what Dr. Emmanuel said as well

HE DID NOT SAY THAT - YOU ARE STRAIGHT FUCKING LYING OR ARE INSANE.

LOL, Post #131..... apparently you are unaware of how to scroll back through a thread, you don't understand English or are just allergic to honesty, if I had to guess based on what I've seen from you so far I'd say it's all three.

But you're more than welcome to cite the post # where I said "Obamacare was designed to fail"... happy hunting.

Ciao

Dickwad, you now claimed that Dr. Emmanuel said - "Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul"

He didn't say that, but you are not man enough to simply admit it and move on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

You’re baying at the moon. The right only cares about debt when the president is a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, no deficit too high for them.

Conservatives rebelled against deficit spending to prevent an economic collapse
They rebelled against deficit spending for hurricane relief

But deficit spending to provide tax cuts to billionaires?
Spend baby, spend

Conservatives rebelled against deficit spending to prevent an economic collapse

Obama's "stimulus" had nothing to do with preventing an economic collapse.

 

[OKTexas]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Income has no constitutional protection

People must be treated the same under the law...they are

The first $20,000 a billionaire makes is taxed the same as a person who only made $20,000 total

If you lay out dollar bills on a table each has equal value, that doesn't change when they are arbitrarily stacked. Why should a dollar be taxed differently depending on where is falls in a stack, it's value is the same.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not.

A company deducting employee salaries or interest expense isn't a tax expenditure.

 

[OKTexas]

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

I wish that was the case but unfortunately according to SCOTUS it's not ..

"it may be said generally that the equal protection clause means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under similar circumstances, Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 293, and that it applies to the exercise of all the powers of the state which can affect the individual or his property, including the power of taxation. County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385, 388-399; The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722, 733. It does not, however, forbid classification; and the power of the state to classify for purposes of taxation is of wide range and flexibility, provided always, that the classification "must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation" -- LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COLEMAN, AUDITOR. SCOTUS (1928)

It is arbitrary, the value of a dollar doesn't change depending on were it falls in a stack, it's still a dollar.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax.

What about dividends?

 

[danielpalos]

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Income has no constitutional protection

People must be treated the same under the law...they are

The first $20,000 a billionaire makes is taxed the same as a person who only made $20,000 total

If you lay out dollar bills on a table each has equal value, that doesn't change when they are arbitrarily stacked. Why should a dollar be taxed differently depending on where is falls in a stack, it's value is the same.


.

taxes are usually based on ability to pay; just like stores.

 

[OKTexas]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax.

Nope, Dividends & repatriated overseas earnings are subject to double taxation and if the GOP HoR gets its way SALT will be a 3rd example of it.

What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern,

You're joking right? Following your logic deductions shouldn't exist at all since they're all based on costs, why is that you want to single out costs relating to State and Local taxes? Do you just arbitrarily want to punish people in high tax localities because you don't like them or something? One would think that a conservative would be completely against taxing money that the income earner already forked over to government but I guess my understanding of conservatism needs to be updated......

federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.
.

See Post #181 and the SCOTUS decision that explains why you're wrong.

You're right, I think all individual deductions should be eliminated and every dollar should be taxed the same. BTW dividends are new money resulting from an investment, they should be treated no differently than rent profits on a piece of property.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not.

A company deducting employee salaries or interest expense isn't a tax expenditure.

Nope, net profits on businesses should be taxed, without the business expenses there would be no profits.


.

 

[bendog]

Student loan interest deduction ... gone

Business loan interest deduction ... still here.

LOL

 

[OKTexas]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax.

What about dividends?

Dividends are the equivalent of rental income, without the hassle of dealing with tenants and property maintenance.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not.

A company deducting employee salaries or interest expense isn't a tax expenditure.

Nope, net profits on businesses should be taxed, without the business expenses there would be no profits.


.

Exactly. That's why they aren't tax expenditures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax.

What about dividends?

Dividends are the equivalent of rental income, without the hassle of dealing with tenants and property maintenance.


.

Company earnings are taxed at the corporate level and again when the dividend is paid to the investor.

 

[OKTexas]

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not.

A company deducting employee salaries or interest expense isn't a tax expenditure.

Nope, net profits on businesses should be taxed, without the business expenses there would be no profits.


.

Exactly. That's why they aren't tax expenditures.

The same can't be said for individual wage earners.


.