The Politics of Taxation in America

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_VinylBoy, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    One of the most popular ideologies from some conservatives (especially of the ones that love to parTEA) is the belief that government shouldn't spend more than they take in. Knowing this, I propose this question:

    The total federal tax revenue by state collected by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in 2007 was roughly $2.6 Trillion. - Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    With the current tax rates, the amount of revenue collected in 2010 is now down to $2.3 Trillion. - SOI Tax Stats - Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year - IRS Data Book Table 5

    Since many conservatives are against raising taxes (and are adamant in never passing any legislation that raises them a single dollar), if they continue to get their way that would mean the federal government will continue to receive less and less money in order to take care of its obligations to people. Knowing how many different organizations and programs our government is responsible for funding on a yearly basis, how is it possible to do it solely based on the amount of revenue it takes in and nothing more? Secondly, how would you propose to make that happen in such a way to not completely destroy the financial & social lives of certain social demographics?
     
    #1 B_VinylBoy, Jul 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  2. parr

    parr New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    I realize that you and I are opposites politicaly, however if we tax
    these corporations let's do it this way:
    1. Tax all outsourced services.
    2. Tax all goods brought in from other countries.
    3. Only give a marginal tax break to those corporations who actually
    hire here.
    What do you think of that idea.
     
  3. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    The problem is that the spending has been so obscene for the last 11 years that it wouldn't be palatable to match tax receipts directly to outlays right away.

    The rational thing would be to start winding down spending, and begin to edge up taxes until eventually the two meet; and we have a balanced spending budget between receipts and outlays.

    The past and current administration were/are hellbent on wholeheartedly ignoring the relationship between receipts and outlays altogether.

    There is so much fat in the government it is indescribable.

    I frankly wouldn't mind if they just eliminated the unified credit on estate taxes altogether - that would jack up receipts considerably.
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Part of that can be blamed on the two wars and the recession, of course.

    This is interesting because even you believe that taxes should be raised a bit.
    Which makes me wonder why some of the parTEA people are so adamant in not raising them even a penny in order for our government to at least generate some reasonable revenue to balance out any necessary spending they need to do.

    So much is said about this, yet the only high profile examples I've seen presented are things like Planned Parenthood and that turned out to be a complete farce. But their funds were cut anyway in a number of states. With exception of the wars in the Middle East (which everyone agrees need to end so we don't waste money over there), where else should we be trimming the fat? And provide your math (if possible).
     
  5. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    One quick example (i'm short on time:)

    Medicaid recipients repeatedly going to the ER to get perscriptions for pain pills. They call an ambulance ($600) get taken to ER ($300) then get a perscription ($80.)

    They don't pay even 10 cents. The taxpayer gets nailed for $980. Many ER's in Cincinnati are 80% or more medicaid patients.

    These same medicaid pain-pill addicts also bombard Urgent Care Facilities - which also of course are 100% billed to the government. ZERO copay on any of their ER visits, prescriptions or any other services.

    This adds up to tens, maybe a hundred billion dollars every year.
     
  6. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Provide proof of widespread abuse. No more anecdotal bullshit.

    Want to cut spending? End all wars, and cut the DOD defense to tiny levels.
     
  7. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,280
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Ya just can't make things up...........Please verify your allegations or they aren't worth shit.
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    If 140 Million tax payers get hit with a charge of $980 for one person on Medicaid in your example, in total each taxpayer would pay 0.0000007 of a penny. (980 / 140,000,000)

    According to this chart, the total Medicaid enrollment for the year 2007 was 58,106,000. Total Medicaid Enrollment, FY2007 - Kaiser State Health Facts

    If by chance, every single person on Medicaid needed to go to ER and get prescription pills at least once at the prices you stated, each taxpayer would have to pay approximately $40.67 (58,106,000 x 0.0000007).

    Or roughly $5.69 Billion if you calculated 140 Million taxpayers. (40.67 x 140,000,000)

    That's not tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars, and that's even if the numbers you provided were factual as some people seem to find issue with them. But the question remains, is a $40 savings to your pocketbook enough for you to be so adamant about slashing Medicaid to people who need it?

    (Not a perfectly honest question, of course, but considering the circumstances it did seem appropriate.)
     
  9. Quast

    Quast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    272
    Gender:
    Male
    My whole issue is that even if we cut spending to $2.3 trillion, we have to raise taxes. The average person's income over the past ten years has stagnated (most have declined), inflation still exists, so even if tax revenue is matched to spending this year, taxes have to be raised if the average person's income doesn't grow to match that inflation. This year's $2.3 trillion in spending is next year's $2.35 trillion in spending even if nothing changes, yet tax receipts will still stay at $2.3 trillion since there was no growth in income.

    Not to mention the interest on our federal debt obligations grows every year, so even disregarding inflation, taxes would have to be raised to match it.
     
    #9 Quast, Jul 19, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  10. OhWiseOne

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,493
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    I'm not following your logic. The average person's income has stagnated or decline based on inflation so we need to increase thier taxes to support the governments debt. The average working family will need to look at thier budget and determine, with the increased tax burden, where they need to make cuts. But the government shouldn't follow the same basic rules.
    As an added thought tax dollars will continue to decrease based on the loss of jobs we are experiencing and federal aid will increase. How should that be addressed?
     
  11. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,869
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Not in Britain they dont. The ambulance service is run by the state and the marginal cost is probably the cost of fuel for the trip. At the ER sounds like they get put to the end of the queue so either they wait till 2 AM to get their £5 pills, or give up and go home. Their GP gets a note to give them a ticking off for wasting everyones time? From what I hear, painkillers are pretty cheap drugs if you are buying bulk.
     
  12. Quast

    Quast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    272
    Gender:
    Male
    You've shown exactly why taxes need to be raised on the wealthy.
     
  13. OhWiseOne

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,493
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    Who are the wealthy? Everyone would have a different idea on that line that you want to draw.
     
  14. Thedrewbert

    Thedrewbert Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    579
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    There are many lines. It's a graduated tax system.
     
  15. Thedrewbert

    Thedrewbert Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    579
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    One of the things I would do is remove the cap on how much income gets taxed for social security.
    Capital Gains gets taxed at the same rate as income (with the exception of selling a primary residence, one allowed per year)
    Start a transaction tax for securities held less than a minimum amount of time (say 2 minutes): This would curb a current market manipulation problem we are currently having.
    Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.
    Gas tax gets set to (((Cost of Highways + an extremely well funded Amtrak)*1.15)/approximate number of gallons used by the country at large per year) per gallon.
     
  16. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    The difficulty is that both parties have created a situation where it is much harder to balance the budget now that it would have been eight years ago. Between the poor economy, Bush's 2003 tax cuts, two expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan, rising healthcare costs, recent stimulus spending and increased defense spending (not counting the wars), it's become almost impossible to balance the budget. The deficit is THAT large.

    The federal government's tax bite of the national economy is now as low as it's been since the Eisenhower administration. In the 1950s, Social Security hadn't been expanded and Medicare didn't exist. Now our tax base is that low, but we are paying for those things. It's not so much that we have to spend more than we have during a recession. It's that we've been spending far more than we have even during relatively good economic times for the last 30 years.

    I think that as long as the the country has a multi-trillion dollar debt, no one in this country deserves a tax cut. The anti-tax crowd is constantly complaining that it's the "people's money". They're correct. But they conveniently ignore that it's also the people's debt. We all re-elected leaders who -- year after year -- continued to rack up deficits. Eventually it was bound to reach a point where it couldn't continue anymore. (I'm not saying that time is right now. The federal debt limit is an arbitrary creation of Congress, not a fiscal tipping point.) It's difficult to blame our elected officials for not being brave, since we've rewarded them for spending more than we have for a long time.
     
  17. travis1985

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    868
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    31
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    Off topic, but I like your signature line. Ditto 90% for Bush.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted