Higher Taxes Won’t Lower Debt, Spending Must Stop

Tax reform is necessary in order to create the "leaner" government the President spoke of in the SOTU, because the only way the government will become "leaner" is with less.  The only way the electorate will understand the massive spending that is currently going on is if everyone "has skin in the game".  A flat tax of  18% on all personal income would actually generate the same tax revenue on all reported personal income that we had in 2010.  Understand that tax rate is also based upon a solitary deduction - a poverty line deduction such that no income earned that totals less than the poverty line will be taxed.  Levy the same tax on all corporate income and revenues from corporations will actually increase.  No other deductions, special treatment, handouts, exemptions or credits - just the poverty line deduction which would be taken by everyone reporting personal income.  Also, the tax should be paid quarterly by the individual.  No more employer withholding for income tax.  Even if one's income falls below the threshold for actually writing a check, everyone who has a job should make a filing on a quarterly basis. 

Re 19: Do you like to eat food?  From Immigration in Agriculture:

Immigrant labor has become an increasingly important component of many agricultural jobs. Nearly one-half of U.S. meat processing industry employees are foreign- born and a similar proportion of crop production workers are estimated to be foreign born. Forty-one percent of U.S. dairy workers are foreigners, according to a 2008 national survey sponsored by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and conducted by Texas AgriLife Reseach, a component of the Texas A & M University System.

Citizens won't do the work.

Re 20: Nonsense.  If anything, the immigrant population puts a huge strain on schools.  What teacher or administrator would want to increase its immigrant population?  Silly boy.

Mr. Huffman -

After tax money means it must have been taxed as income at some point.  If you were to invest that money, any dividends or capital gains would be created by that invested money.  So while your claim that any gains ($20 in your example) are the only thing taxed, you forget that money is only made using the after tax money as leverage.  He has already paid income tax on that money.  While the term "double taxation" may not be appropriate, the public needs to know he has already paid income tax once.  You know good and well this has been spun in the media as Romney has only paid a 15% tax.  There is a huge difference between paying an income tax, and risking your after tax money to create an income.     

Our schools want and encourage more illegal immigrants.  More students allows then to demand more teachers and resources from taxpayers.

Get rid of all the illegals, If landlords rent to them take the property, if someone hires them take the business. This will make them return to their country no place to live, no job, no welfare gotta go home. Save billions on welfare it will open up jobs that no one would believe, schools would have alot more funding and room. Legals would have jobs and money to spend, reduce unemployment pay outs. So you see no sense in raising taxes.

Dear Mollio,
I would never buy a used car from you. 

Re: 16 - Nearly half the country receives a gubmint check of some kind; I mean it because it's true.

Re 15: "Entitlement state."  Lol.  You say stuff like that like you mean it.

Taxes, particularly increases are a moot point at this point.

Once Zero and the Dems lose control of their remainder of the gubmint in a few short months, the entitlement state will have to learn to cut back.

Their votes will no longer buy them access to our back pockets.

Class envy and race hate will only carry a political campaign so far.

Zero's about to find that out... :)

RE:13 - Mr. Gibbs:  According to Wikipedia:

"The term 'double taxation' is additionally used, particularly in the USA, to refer to the fact that corporate profits are taxed and the shareholders of the corporation are (usually) subject to further personal taxation when they receive dividends or distributions of those profits."

This is not the situation you describe.  If I own a used car dealership and purchase a car for 15K and resell that same vehicle to the Big Jake for 35K, I have income of 20K.  I pay 35% to the Gov't in taxes, leaving me with 13K.  I take that 13K and reinvest it by purchasing another vehicle which I sell for 33K and make another 20K.  If I pay taxes at 35% on this second transaction, is that double taxation or taxes on normal transactions of my business?  Why do you think it is double taxation if I take the 13K I made off of selling you a vehicle and put it in the bank and earn interest?  What is the difference between buy a second vehicle to earn additional money vs. earning interest in a savings account?

I doubt you will accept the commonly accepted definition of "double taxation" because it doesn't fit your argument.  You will stubbornly cling to the defintion you made up.  The second issue with your post is the simple math of your argument is wrong.  Say Mitt's "wage earner" income is $1,000,000 and he pays 35% or 350K, and invests the remaining 650K in a blind trust.  The blind trust earns 10% or 65,000.  He is taxed on this 65,000 at 17% or 11K.  So in all Mitt has earned 1,065,000 and paid taxes of $361,000.  His effective tax rate is 34% not the 52% (35% + 17%).  Mitt is not paying anywhere near the % you tried to claim he is.

The real truth to Big Jake's post is this: "Please take [take] the time to actually try to understand what you are talking about.  It would enhance your argument." 
 

Mr. Huffman,
If you earn an income, isn't it taxed at the maximum rate depending on which tax bracket your income amount falls into?  And if you take a percentage of your "wage earner" income and invest it in stocks or taxible mutual funds, you will pay an effective rate under capital gains of about 17%.  So the money in Mitt Romney's blind trust has already been taxed at the maximum earned income rate when he earned the income to make the initial investment.  And then the money he earns in the form of dividends at the "lower"rate has already been taxed at the 17% rate.  This is double taxation by anybody's standards.  For those unfortunate folks who do not save and wisely invest their earned incomes,  you do not gain the advantage of a lower taxation rate on an investment because you have failed to wisely save and invest.  And to clarify this issue for those who are are too dim to understand what investment income actually is, investment income provides venture capital to make business startups possible.  The vast majority of the jobs lost during the the Obama recession are in small businesses.  You have to have venture capital to make startup businesses possible and not government program money.

Now do you require any additional data so you can understand this issue?  If you  undertake a high risk with your funds, you deserve a higher reward for your capital.

to encourage folks to invest their money.  we need people investng and creatng businesses

RE 10 I need to correct my earlier post.  Savings and dividends are taxed at the normal rate but capital gains are not. The question is still why capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than normal income.

RE 7:  I'm not sure where this double taxation idea comes from. For example, let's say I take $1000 of my after tax income and put it in a savings account. Let's say I earn $20 of interest on that account. I only have to pay tax on the $20, not the original $1000.  Where's the double taxation? And why should that interest be taxed at a lower rate than my income was that generated the original $1000?

You can perform the same exercise with capital gains.  Only the capital gain is taxed, not the original amount.

        Without specifics the title of this letter is neither true nor false.  It depends on the actual numbers.  Since money is only the proxy for actual resources, then the real issue in our country is resources.
        The actual amount of food, and building materials and natural resources is finite, but sufficient for everyone.  It is the distribution and waste that is the problem.  We cannot "grow" ourselves out of the problem forever, since the actual resources are finite.  We must learn how to use our energy and raw materials in a smarter manner, and we may begin to find that there is enough to go around.
         Those who make continuous comments about how horrible the redistribution of wealth in our country are welcome to propose private means to bring needed resources to those at the bottom, but just remember this . . . .  Those at the top are there because of the redistributions that have already occured due to policies of the government.  Public "welfare" does not exist in a vacuum, but beside the even greater levels of corporate "welfare." Why remove welfare at the bottom BEFORE we remove it at the top?

Re 5: Another swing and a miss.

Re 5....54%....wow....I think the 17% is the taxable amount on the gains from his blind trust not a 17% tax on the whole amount in his trust. I hope you don't do taxes for a living.

Witness,
I hope I can help you out here with some micro economic news.  When you earn ordinary income, you are taxed in the maximum bracket that your earnings allow.  For MItt Romney, this would be 35%.  AND THEN, he invests this money into his blind trust which is taxed at approximately 17%.  So lets do this math.  35% + 17% = 54%.
So the effective tax rate for Mr. Romney's income is 54%.  Is that high enough for you or do you feel that Obama should just take (confiscate) all of Mitt's investment capital and give it to you because you do not have the proverbial container to urinate in?  When Hussein Obama speaks of "social justice", that is exactly what he is advocating.  Please take take the time to actually try to understand what you are talking about.  It would enhance your argument. 

re 4 incorrect...the only way to cut the def is when we cut spending.  taxes are another subject.  there is absolutely no reason what so ever to increase taxes when you aren't willing to make the necessary changes in spending.  

stop being greedy and asking someone else to buy what you need....stop being greedy and askng the next generation to take care of you

Re 3: Because, vacuous troll boy, increases in taxes alone will lower the deficit.  However, they can be offset with increases in spending.  Darr.

re2 how can you say "of course" - and then follow it with an "unless" - do you know what you write?

Well, actually, increases in taxes will of course lower the deficit, unless they are accompanied by equal or greater increases in spending.

True.  Mitt Romney admitted that his billion dollar enterprise is only taxed at 15% because it's "investment" property.  There should be a "flat tax" all across the board.  What's fair to the poorer, should also be fair to the rich...