[Rhodes22-list] Taxes - Timely Article

[Brad Haslett]

Rik,

I've kept my eye one the ball as close as anyone.  The IRS has you by the
nads, except for BillE. I wish he would share his secrets.  I doubt he has
any secrets,  just smoke and mirrors.  We'll see.

Brad


On 1/18/07, Rik Sandberg <sanderico at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> Well, I finished reading her article ...... She's still scary .... Wrong
> headed thinking....
>
> But, you are right. A clean slate is in order and IMO the only
> worthwhile way to go.
>
> Rik
>
>
> Rik Sandberg wrote:
>
> > Brad,
> >
> > I have to admit, I came unglued right away and didn't read the whole
> > article. Maybe I should go back now that I've settled down and finish
> > it :)
> >
> > Yes, I AM in favor of a new sheet of paper. I still like the sales tax
> > idea
> >
> > www.fairtax.org
> >
> > With this program, one could literally choose whether he'd like to pay
> > taxes like a rich guy or pay very little. 'Course one's standard of
> > living is going to have to reflect that choice. But for the
> > conservative spender, saving for retirement might actually be a
> > possibility.
> >
> > And Philip ..... there is a provision in this to repeal ..... uh,
> > whatever the hell amendment it is, that allows income taxes.
> >
> > Rik
> >
> >
> > Brad Haslett wrote:
> >
> >> Rik,
> >>
> >> I understand your point.  However, comma, the bottom 50% pay very
> >> little,
> >> and a huge hunk of that percentage don't participate anyway.  Let's
> >> make it
> >> official.  The top 20% pay most of the taxes, in fact, the top 5% pay
> >> most
> >> of them, but everyone get's one vote.  I say we start with a new
> >> sheet of
> >> paper.
> >>
> >> Brad
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/18/07, Rik Sandberg <sanderico at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Brad,
> >>>
> >>> Yikes!!! this woman is scary. I wonder if she isn't into the
> >>> Guinness......
> >>>
> >>> Subsidy, does she understand what that word means? How is taking
> >>> less of
> >>> a persons money a subsidy? By her way of thinking ALL of our money
> >>> belongs to the government and nice guys that they are, sometimes they
> >>> let us keep a little of it.
> >>>
> >>> This little blurb is really precious
> >>>
> >>> "They are also extremely regressive. A particular
> >>> tax exemption might be worth 35 cents on the dollar to a wealthy
> >>> individual
> >>> and only 10 cents to someone on the other end of the income scale who
> >>> faces
> >>> a lower tax rate."
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me ....... how can you give a tax break to people who don't pay
> >>> any???
> >>>
> >>> I think I'm going to read Ayn Rand again and see if I can figure out
> >>> where all those guys went. It's starting to seem like a helluva good
> >>> idea. This next thing has been around before, but maybe some need
> >>> reminding. here's a link
> >>>
> >>> http://www.julianpistorius.com/journal/?postid=45
> >>>
> >>> Rik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Here's an article from today's WaPo that dovetails neatly with our
> >>> recent
> >>> > discussion.  Care to make a bet about the home interest
> >>> deduction?  No
> >>> > one
> >>> > in the Congress has the guts to take on that sacred cow!
> >>> >
> >>> > Brad
> >>> >
> >>> > -----------
> >>> >
> >>> > *The $800 Billion Tax Loophole
> >>> > *
> >>> >
> >>> > By Maya MacGuineas
> >>> > Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
> >>> > Thursday, January 18, 2007; 12:00 AM
> >>> >
> >>> > Democrats are in a bind when it comes to their domestic economic
> >>> agenda.
> >>> > They have promised a number of new and costly initiatives such as
> >>> > fixing the
> >>> > Alternative Minimum Tax, providing middle-class tax relief, and
> >>> > increasing
> >>> > spending on homeland security and education. But they have also
> >>> made a
> >>> > commitment to fiscal responsibility. So how can they deliver on
> their
> >>> > promises without opening themselves up to the old "tax and spend"
> >>> label?
> >>> > Reforming tax entitlements -- a large, mostly under-the-radar part
> of
> >>> the
> >>> > federal budget -- might just give them a way out of their
> >>> predicament.
> >>> >
> >>> > As a result of the 1986 bipartisan tax reforms, the tax base was
> >>> > broadened
> >>> > and the tax code was greatly simplified. But these reforms have been
> >>> > gradually undone as Congress has created scores of new tax breaks
> and
> >>> > loopholes. Want to preserve historic buildings, encourage
> alternative
> >>> > energy
> >>> > sources, help working families, or give certain industries a boost
> >>> > without
> >>> > appearing to increase spending? Voil? -- a new targeted tax break is
> >>> > born.
> >>> >
> >>> > Most tax expenditures are really spending programs designed to look
> >>> > like tax
> >>> > cuts. Picture them as vouchers for healthcare, mortgage payments,
> >>> > daycare,
> >>> > transportation -- name the tax break. Dressing these programs up as
> >>> > tax cuts
> >>> > makes them a much easier sell for politicians who fear the "big
> >>> spender"
> >>> > label. But call them what you will, they drain the money from the
> >>> > Treasury
> >>> > and extend the scope of government. All told, this portion of the
> >>> budget
> >>> > represents $800 billion in lost government revenues annually.
> >>> >
> >>> > Not only do these tax breaks mask the true size of the government,
> >>> > they are
> >>> > a terrible way to make policy. They regularly pay people and
> >>> > businesses to
> >>> > do what they would do anyway, making them both poorly targeted and
> >>> > unnecessarily expensive. They are also extremely regressive. A
> >>> particular
> >>> > tax exemption might be worth 35 cents on the dollar to a wealthy
> >>> > individual
> >>> > and only 10 cents to someone on the other end of the income scale
> who
> >>> > faces
> >>> > a lower tax rate. It would be hard to justify a housing policy
> >>> that does
> >>> > more to subsidize the rich than the poor, yet that is exactly what
> >>> the
> >>> > $80
> >>> > billion a year home mortgage interest deduction does.
> >>> >
> >>> > Moreover, tax expenditures do not get nearly the level of scrutiny
> >>> they
> >>> > should. (If they did, would we really have a government program that
> >>> > subsidizes millionaires who buy vacation homes?) New government
> >>> programs
> >>> > should only be created following vigorous debate over whether a
> >>> proposed
> >>> > policy is important enough to warrant government intervention, and
> if
> >>> > it is,
> >>> > whether it will be effective. Discussions about new tax programs
> >>> however,
> >>> > tend to focus almost exclusively on the cost. Billions of dollars of
> >>> > targeted tax cuts have been passed in the past few years with little
> >>> > or no
> >>> > discussion about the worthiness of their goals. And unlike spending
> >>> > programs, which are subject to congressional review, tax expenditure
> >>> > programs are pretty much on automatic pilot.
> >>> >
> >>> > Reforming this area of the budget would not only be a critical
> >>> step in
> >>> > improving the tax code (and probably the closest thing we will see
> to
> >>> > fundamental tax reform in the next two years) it could also generate
> >>> > tens --
> >>> > if not hundreds -- of billions of dollars in savings.
> >>> >
> >>> > The first step should be capping a number of existing tax breaks.
> >>> Capping
> >>> > two of the largest breaks -- the home mortgage interest deduction
> and
> >>> the
> >>> > exclusion for employer-provided healthcare, would easily provide
> over
> >>> $50
> >>> > billion a year in savings. Both of these changes would reduce the
> >>> large
> >>> > subsidies that go to the highest earners while freeing up resources.
> >>> > Getting
> >>> > rid of a host of other tax breaks that subsidize certain
> >>> businesses or
> >>> > industries could easily generate another $25 billion. A thorough
> >>> > review of
> >>> > the over 150 existing tax expenditures to determine which ones have
> >>> > outlived
> >>> > their usefulness would yield still more in savings. As Democrats
> >>> > search for
> >>> > ways to offset the costs of their new agenda, reducing the $800
> >>> > billion tax
> >>> > loophole would be an excellent place to start.
> >>> >
> >>> > *Maya MacGuineas is the Director of the Fiscal Policy Program at
> >>> the New
> >>> > America Foundation.*
> >>> > __________________________________________________
> >>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>