[Rhodes22-list] Taxes - Timely Article

[Rik Sandberg]

Brad,

Sounds about right to me :)

Rik


Brad Haslett wrote:

> 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
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>