5 Reasons Why the “Supercommittee” Must Consider Tax Increases

[웃 910]

And the top 5 percent paying nearly 60 percent of all federal income taxes while having less than 35 percent of the nation's taxable income is fair how?

Life's not fair. They get other benefits (all of them). They have huge dollar amount tax savings vs. the middle class.

The lower and middle class (bottom 60%) are not seeing any income gains since 1979. Well, barely 20%....The top 20% are getting filthier and filthier rich each year. Good for them.

"Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the U.S. tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as anecdotal evidence: Buffett stated that with an income of over $46 million, he pays a tax rate of 17.7 percent, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30 percent"

When was the last time a multi-millionaire put $12 of unleaded gasoline on #7? Never. It is an everyday reality for a lot of people. Most taxes are regressive.

Ever heard of ghetto taxes?

[B_J 2,752]

Modest increases for Social Security and Medicare taxes would keep them sustainable for the next 50 years. We could also raise the retirement age and limit it to only those who need rather than it being an entitlement.

But the problem is, if a politician actually suggests anything to try to fix the problem, then the opposition immediately starts attacking with the "throw granny off a cliff" commercials.

[mawilson 2,133]

We could also raise the retirement age and limit it to only those who need rather than it being an entitlement.

Indeed. That's what the Democrats call "crippling cuts".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But the problem is, if a politician actually suggests anything to try to fix the problem, then the opposition immediately starts attacking with the "throw granny off a cliff" commercials.

I don't know - the Congressional Republicans were publicly talking of cutting Social Security and Medicare and some were talking of eliminating those programs altogether. We'll have to wait and see how the voting public responds. This would then be a good time to talk about alternative solutions, such as raising the retirement age and putting income limits on who can collect on SS and Medicare.

[mawilson 2,133]

Life's not fair.

Exactly. So stop saying that the rich are "not paying their fair share." They are and then some.

putting income limits on who can collect on SS and Medicare.

Means-testing SS and Medicare would instantly balance the budget.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fair is too subjective of a word. The fact is that without progressive taxation, wealth tends to become concentrated to the very top.

[Zero Sum 305]

I hear President Obama saying that "millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share". Do the almost 50% who pay no income tax need to share in the scrifice and pay their fair share? What exactly is considered fair?

A philosophical question that isn't that philosophical to be honest. Fair IMO should consider the impact it makes on the income level that is being requested to give out more.

When the rich are impacted in a parallel and equally burdening manner by their taxes as are the middle and poor classes, then your question will be answered.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fair is too subjective of a word. The fact is that without progressive taxation, wealth tends to become concentrated to the very top.

Agreed. The other side of that coin, of course, is the bottom 50 percent of Americans who

are not paying *any* income taxes and don't have any skin in the game.

[웃 910]

Exactly. So stop saying that the rich are "not paying their fair share." They are and then some.

Why? We can "SQUEEZE" another $80 billion a year out of the rich bastards if the Bush tax cuts expire!

Relative to income (compared to regular folk) they are paying "pennies" for health care, gas, food, car insurance, cable, energy costs, university tuition, cost of raising children, pretty much everything. They have conquered life and deserve to be punished!!! They aren't getting poorer (they are getting increasingly richer).

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

Why? We can "SQUEEZE" another $80 billion a year out of the rich bastards if the Bush tax cuts expire!

And we can squeeze $350 billion a year out of the middle class bastards if the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agreed. The other side of that coin, of course, is the bottom 50 percent of Americans who are not paying *any* income taxes and don't have any skin in the game.

Of course they don't. How could they seeing that they've been skinned already? Median income declined since 2000 which means that that bottom 50% already has less than they ever did. Where did all that income growth of the last decade go? You guessed it, to the top 5%. They took the skin of the peasants already and are now complaining that the peasants don't have any skin in the game? Give them back their skin and they might just put some back into the game.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I still love the idiocy by the grand assumption that revenues will 'magically' increase if the tax cuts expire.

That's going on A LOT of "IF" factors.

Of course with those same "IF" factors in place you don't need to let the tax cuts expire at all. Revenues would go up on their own.

People choose to ignore these little tidbits though.

[Zero Sum 305]

I still love the idiocy by the grand assumption that revenues will 'magically' increase if the tax cuts expire.

That's going on A LOT of "IF" factors.

Of course with those same "IF" factors in place you don't need to let the tax cuts expire at all. Revenues would go up on their own.

People choose to ignore these little tidbits though.

Its income that has increased as a result of having the cuts in place. Therefore, the revenue is there. No magic involved.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Its income that has increased as a result of having the cuts in place. Therefore, the revenue is there. No magic involved.

you're right. Income did increase with the tax cuts in place. Glad we can agree. The Feds made more money in 2007 than at any other point in history. All with the cuts in place.

What was their problem though? SPENDING!!! They had to spend all of it and so much more, and they continue to do.

[Zero Sum 305]

you're right. Income did increase with the tax cuts in place. Glad we can agree. The Feds made more money in 2007 than at any other point in history. All with the cuts in place.

What was their problem though? SPENDING!!! They had to spend all of it and so much more, and they continue to do.

I guess you missed whose income increased that would be subject to the point of the expiration of these tax cuts.