Obama Wealth Redistribution Thread

[LADoc00]

Now that Obama has been elected, the wealth redistribution plan is going into full effect. This thread will be ongoing for those who either are on the receiving end of the wealth or (like many of us actually working now) on the end of having your wealth given away.

I saw some less fortunate citizens eyeing my coat this morning...next year could be interesting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drfunktacular]

 

[LADoc00]

Grats man! How much are you going to steal, I mean "redistribute", to yourself and your less fortunate citizens of Texas?

When is post election looting of locals malls down there?

 

[drfunktacular]

Wooooooooooooo

 

[dragonfly99]

relax LADoc
the world is not going to come to an end
all politicians take your money, it's just a ? of what they are going to take it for...LOL.
Republicans will take it for more wars and to give subsidies to corporations.
Dems will take it and give it to poor people, and probably to expand Medicaid and some other social programs.
I picked what was behind door #2 (the Dems).
At least Obama is smart...I never could convince myself that George Bush the younger had a lot under the hood in that department.
I thought McCain and Obama both gave good speeched last night.

 

[LADoc00]

LOL I am relaxed.

 

[drfunktacular]

relax LADoc
the world is not going to come to an end
all politicians take your money, it's just a ? of what they are going to take it for...LOL.
Republicans will take it for more wars and to give subsidies to corporations.
Dems will take it and give it to poor people, and probably to expand Medicaid and some other social programs.
I picked what was behind door #2 (the Dems).
At least Obama is smart...I never could convince myself that George Bush the younger had a lot under the hood in that department.
I thought McCain and Obama both gave good speeched last night.

Yeah their speeches were both tops, IMHO. Throwback to the days of good McCain ca. late 1990's/early 2000's. Too bad we didn't hear it enough during the campaign, but post-Palin it wouldn't have mattered what he said, he was toast anyway. Exit polling shows that 19% of Republicans want Palin in 2012. NINETEEN! That alone should be repudiation enough.

33% said they want Romney. Bring that to the table if you want to have a serious discussion about economic policies in the next election. Bring Palin if you want to get ground into an even finer Republican dust.

 

[RustyGator]

I don't understand why so many people get so dramatic about the ~3% increase to their MARGINAL tax rate for anything made over $250,000. Are you that fiscally selfish that you can't give away an extra 3% of $50,000 if you make $300,000? Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be making that much money? It's called sharing and should have been taught at a very, very young age. I have no problem sharing some extra money of mine to help fund programs that are desperately needed to help keep this nation running. Obviously there are going to be free-riders, but this is a reality that will always exist in any type of subsidy system. Many people need these government programs, and as Americans it should be our responsibility, as a whole, to help out our less fortunate.

Also, look at the "big picture." Sure, you are paying a little more each year if you make over $250K, but the current administration obviously isn't working, so with a new administration hopefully comes change in a way to stimulate this economy. With a stronger economy comes a much better America for YOU to live in. We must also look at how the world views us. They absolutely hate us right now. Obama should help this cause to a great degree as already evident from media reportings from the news of Obama being elected.

I'm sure I'll get ripped for these comments, but it is just my opinion...so don't take it too seriously if you don't agree with me. I just feel way too many people are overly dramatic about politics and focus too much on every penny in their wallet and don't look at the big picture or the "long-term" picture.

Obama will be our next President whether you like it or not. It is time that we all stand together and turn this mess around. Hopefully Obama will act responsible for America as a whole and not just try to push the liberal ticket too far. America needs change, but it needs to be taken one step at a time.

 

[LADoc00]

I don't understand why so many people get so dramatic about the ~3% increase to their MARGINAL tax rate for anything made over $250,000. Are you that fiscally selfish that you can't give away an extra 3% of $50,000 if you make $300,000? Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be making that much money? It's called sharing and should have been taught at a very, very young age. I have no problem sharing some extra money of mine to help fund programs that are desperately needed to help keep this nation running. Obviously there are going to be free-riders, but this is a reality that will always exist in any type of subsidy system. Many people need these government programs, and as Americans it should be our responsibility, as a whole, to help out our less fortunate.

Also, look at the "big picture." Sure, you are paying a little more each year if you make over $250K, but the current administration obviously isn't working, so with a new administration hopefully comes change in a way to stimulate this economy. With a stronger economy comes a much better America for YOU to live in. We must also look at how the world views us. They absolutely hate us right now. Obama should help this cause to a great degree as already evident from media reportings from the news of Obama being elected.

I'm sure I'll get ripped for these comments, but it is just my opinion...so don't take it too seriously if you don't agree with me. I just feel way too many people are overly dramatic about politics and focus too much on every penny in their wallet and don't look at the big picture or the "long-term" picture.

Obama will be our next President whether you like it or not. It is time that we all stand together and turn this mess around. Hopefully Obama will act responsible for America as a whole and not just try to push the liberal ticket too far. America needs change, but it needs to be taken one step at a time.

No, its not SHARING, sharing is voluntary. This is STEALING.

verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission, esp. secretly or by force.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance:

 

[RustyGator]

Interesting. So you are in favor of no taxes at all? How do you propose our government to run then?

 

[DrJD]

I never could convince myself that George Bush the younger had a lot under the hood in that department.

Anecdotally, Bush is actually quite smart... Never really figured out why he struggles so much in front of the camera though. My wife met him a couple years ago and she said it didn't take more than 30 seconds being around him to realize how smart he was. Also, was talking with one of the secretaries of something rather and he was telling me how he is truly brilliant.

I'm not condoning all of his decisions the last 8 years, just offering anecdotal evidence that he is intelligent.

 

[UserNameNeeded]

Just curious when the Obama celebratory raping and looting is set to begin in Oakland and Southside Chicago etc.

You should be more concerned about the violent redneck racists, supremacists, bigots and xenophobes rioting and massacring minorities and trying to assassinate Obama, like they've already been plotting.

Just that crowd screaming, hissing and booing during McCain's concession speech made me cringe. It's the same crowd screaming "Kill [Obama]!" and "Terrorist [Obama]!" all throughout the McCain/Pain rallies these last few months.

As for taxes, it's high time all Americans, especially those with the most wealth realize they had a hand, however indirect, in running up our $10 trillion national debt. That loan is coming due for repayment. Everybody needs to pay according to their means, especially the war-mongers, Bush/Republican voters and those who invested in the defense companies.

 

[southerndoc]

This isn't as much a tax raise as it is a repealing of the Bush tax cuts. Taxes will go back to what they were during the Clinton era.

 

[RustyGator]

This isn't as much a tax raise as it is a repealing of the Bush tax cuts. Taxes will go back to what they were during the Clinton era.

This is mostly true. Obama has actually proposed extending the Bush tax rate cuts except for the highest tax bracket in which he will let the rate sunset to what it was before. Again, only those that make over $250K will be affected (from an income tax standpoint).

Also, while not as fiscally conservative under the 2001 EGTRRA, Obama has proposed an estate tax plan that will essentially be much lower than under Clinton and will affect a much, much lower percentage of people as well.

Really, what this all these taxes boil down to is a "fairness" argument. The government must operate in an economic neutrality world. This means, in order to fund certain policies it must cut others by an equal amount (operating under a 10 year span). For taxpayers in the lowest tax brackets to benefit more, taxpayers in the highest tax bracket will help fund it. All this does is slightly raise the progressivity of the current tax system.

Everyone that argues for a flat tax, or a fair tax, or whatever tax you want to come up with, the government has to be funded, overall, by the same amount in order to stay economically neutral. Congress does not want, or allow, the government to grow or shrink, from a funding standpoint as a whole. So yeah, maybe there are programs out there in which you pay less income taxes, but all that means is the government will get you from another angle, i.e, higher sales taxes, VAT taxes, state taxes, transfer taxes, etc.

Again, financially, the fundamental differences between republicans and democrats is the progressivity of the tax system. Who should pay for the government to run? Everyone equally? Or those who could "afford" it? This is an opinion question and is why we select our representatives to Congress and the Presidency to make this decision for us.

 

[Hernandez]

Just that crowd screaming, hissing and booing during McCain's concession speech made me cringe. It's the same crowd screaming "Kill [Obama]!"

source?

As for taxes, it's high time all Americans, especially those with the most wealth realize they had a hand, however indirect, in running up our $10 trillion national debt.

Just how do you figure that?

 

[UserNameNeeded]

"Source?" Look at Youtube or any of the video sharing sites to see the crowds McCain/Palin attract and pander to and the scary, unprecedented things their supportors were saying and doing against another presidential candidate. The numerous video footage speaks for itself.

Newsweek is releasing a behind-the-scenes edition of Campaign 2008 tomorrow...here's an interesting part:

-- The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle Obama said to a top campaign aide.

 

[LADoc00]

You should be more concerned about the violent redneck racists, supremacists, bigots and xenophobes rioting and massacring minorities and trying to assassinate Obama, like they've already been plotting.
.

HEY, Im worried about Obama being assassinated too. But honestly consider myself far more important. (like far far more important, like times 1 zillion more, but hey thats me).

 

[dragonfly99]

LADoc, your references to rioting and looting in Chicago and LA make you sound racist. P.s. I am white.

Rustygator,
I don't think you are right saying that the tax increases are "not a big deal". It's not a big deal to you and me because we don't make enough money to have to pay these taxes. It might be a big deal to people who now see they will have to pay several thousand dollars/year more for programs they don't really directly benefit from in any way (i.e. the money will be given to poor people, essentially). I agree with you that I doubt I'd care about this if I was making 250-300k...wouldn't miss the extra money much. However, in all fairness Obama's plans will likely call for other tax increases besides the 3% increased income tax on the higher tax brackets. factcheck.org had some info on this after one of the recent presidential debates. People who run small businesses, etc. may end up with higher taxes as well, and if Obama and dems aren't careful, that could lead to wage stagnation and/or layoffs. My parents own a small business and I can tell you that even small tax increases can affect them a lot...many of these small business that employ 5 or 10 people don't really have a huge profit margin or reserve funds to just dip in to like a big corporation might.

 

[Hernandez]

"Source?" Look at Youtube or any of the video sharing sites to see the crowds McCain/Palin attract and pander to and the scary, unprecedented things their supportors were saying and doing against another presidential candidate. The numerous video footage speaks for itself.

Newsweek is releasing a behind-the-scenes edition of Campaign 2008 tomorrow...here's an interesting part:

I seem to remember that the claim that people chanted "kill him" had been dubunked as false. or am I mis-remembering?

and of course, it obviously has to do with the McCain/Palin
rallies which led to the increase in death threats.

 

[UserNameNeeded]

You're mis-remembering.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+kill+him+palin&search_type=&aq=f

and that's only one search string. There were multiple caught-on-camera moments recorded throughout the last 2 months at McCain/Palin rallies where things like this happened as Palin or McCain (and the people on stage with them) whipped up the crowds into a frenzy that has to be seen to be believed. You'd think/hope 2008 in America would be different.

And it wasn't just "threats." The FBI/Secret Service have actually arrested a number of people actually planning to carry out these threats. A few of them have been publicized, but most have not been reported.

 

[Suprahelical]

Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be making that much money? It's called sharing and should have been taught at a very, very young age. I have no problem sharing some extra money of mine to help fund programs that are desperately needed to help keep this nation running.

Are you freakin' serious? I should SHARE MY F'in money w/ poor grungy worthless bums? I'm LUCKY? The money that I busted my ass to EARN by studying all those AP classes in high school and to be valedictorian, taking the highest level chem/bio classes all throughout college and graduate summa cum laude, and to laboriously memorize biochemical pathways throughout 4 arduous years of medical school to graduate with highest honors, now to bust my ass in 5-6 long years of residency?

Where I come from, we call that EARNING a living. That is the true American dream that has been swept out from under our feet. Why would anyone work when they can take government handouts now, from me?

Luck had not one god d*mned thing to do with where I'm at now, and it won't have a f*ckin thing to do with how I figure out how to get around this BS.

 

[NewmansOwn]

Interesting. So you are in favor of no taxes at all? How do you propose our government to run then?

LADoc, would you be willing to respond to this? I actually like most of your posts on the pathology forum and would be interested to see how you respond to this quite valid question.

 

[TMP-SMX]

Are you freakin' serious? I should SHARE MY F'in money w/ poor grungy worthless bums?

You already do. It's called the Emergency Department and paid courtesy of the government from your taxes.

 

[mgdsh]

You should just be lucky Palin didn't end up inheriting the reins of President of the US, or fiat currency might as well have collapse.

I sure as **** would have left the country.... the second McCain got hospitalized.

 

[drfunktacular]

You should just be lucky Palin didn't end up inheriting the reins of President of the US, or fiat currency might as well have collapse.

I sure as **** would have left the country.... the second McCain got hospitalized.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc[/YOUTUBE]

And she was selected by the "Country First" team. What a mockery.

Palin and Palinism (i.e. the Platonic ideal of Bush's incuriosity and anti-intellectualism) increasingly seems truly chilling, especially to anyone with a college/post-college education--as in, all of you reading this, so nobody has a right to get all Populist about this. This is one reason the R's are swirling the drain--sure, everyone would assume that lawyers give to D's 5-to-1 over R's. But did you know that docs also give to D's 2-to-1? I think it's because educated people increasingly are alienated by the willful knuckle-dragging of the Republican vanguard.

 

[drfunktacular]

Interesting. So you are in favor of no taxes at all? How do you propose our government to run then?

Yeah I've been harping on Grover Norquist and the whole Americans for Tax Reform thing lately. Somehow people have adopted the ATR doctrine (i.e. lower taxes at all costs, at all times) as being identical with Reaganism and Republicanism and Conservatism broadly. Which is illogical and possibly insane. These people vote on taxes to the same degree that fundamentailists vote on abortion--not that having an opinion is wrong, but come on people there are other issues!

We need a government, period. Governments need money to run, period. Now, deficit spending is a bad thing--unless you're in a recession and think deficit spending can stimulate the economy pull you out of it (say, now-ish). The only problem is when you're already running a $500bil deficit for multiple years when economic times are good, and your budget should be in surplus territory. Too bad Republicans apparently take high school economics in the public schools they underfund! Because now we're screwed.

Taxes are going up no matter what people. McCain would've blamed it on Bush or the "Democrat Congress", but they would've gone up nonetheless. Financial frailty is an underlying condition of this country; electing McCain wouldn't have changed it.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

That's not me, it's Adam Smith (and John McCain is on record as having said something very similar in 2000). The debate comes in defining "more than in proportion."

 

[Suprahelical]

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

That's not me, it's Adam Smith (and John McCain is on record as having said something very similar in 2000). The debate comes in defining "more than in proportion."

"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,
and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and
build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built."

Abraham Lincoln -1864

 

[Suprahelical]

You already do. It's called the Emergency Department and paid courtesy of the government from your taxes.

Haha... tell me about it. And what I already GIVE is enough, on my meager residents income. Not only do I give them my money, I have to read their studies. It's like getting slapped in the face twice!

 

[DrJD]

"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,
and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and
build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built."

Abraham Lincoln -1864

Abraham Lincoln for 2012

 

[edmadison]

What people are missing about the tax hikes is the proposal to remove the cap on the payroll "tax". Currently, you don't pay social security tax on income greater than about 102,000 (IIRC). That's because the tax is tied to your future benefit which is also capped. One of Obama's proposals is to remove this cap. That will result in a 14% increase in taxation on income over 100K, or only 7% for those who employers prefer not to pass their part.

The other question is whether you believe that the tax increases will balance off the spending increases and tax credits. From what I've read, it's not even close to being enough. Where is that money going to come from? We need drastic spending cuts, but no one will do it. Entitlements never get cut, only the defense budget, foreign aid, and some corporate welfare goes down. Entitilements and debt service are the vast majority of the federal budget. Someone needs to start saying no before its too late.

Obama's plan will increase the amount of citizens paying no federal income tax to above 40%. Further, due to new tax credits, many of these will get a credit for their payroll taxes as well. I personally don't have a problem with a "progressive" tax structure, I just think everyone should be paying a little something.

Ed

 

[LADoc00]

LADoc, would you be willing to respond to this? I actually like most of your posts on the pathology forum and would be interested to see how you respond to this quite valid question.

I have a post in the path section basically outlining what I would do to accomplish my political goals.

 

[LADoc00]

LADoc, your references to rioting and looting in Chicago and LA make you sound racist. P.s. I am white.
.

LA? I said Oakland!
Actually I did so unintentionally only because Oakland had an epic Obama street party..but I agree with you in hindsight and edited my post!

 

[RustyGator]

No? I'm about as conservative as they come fiscally (I didn't vote for Obama), but I acknowledge that luck has a lot to do with where I am at now. I was born here and not in a 3rd world country, or 400 years ago. I had a two parent home. My parents are well educated and wealthy. My high school was and is ranked in the top 20 in the country by some academic performance measures. I am free of substantial genetic defect. I appear to have more raw intellectual ability than 99% of the population. I have dealt with no significant or untimely deaths in my immediate family or friendset. I am not mentally ill. Those are all lucky things. I do work hard and I deserve credit for that, but your attitude is a kind of logic trap. My logic for low taxes isn't about "deserve" or moral judgment of laziness of the unwashed masses. I support a flat tax because I believe 1) it's better for the economy 2) it makes more sense from a motivational sense (everyone should pay something) 3) It would limit the class warfare battle that grabs every election. I support private healthcare and privitization of social security because the government has never shown competence in administering or dealing with these types of activities. Medicaid is, basically, forced charity on docs. I support de-centralized government because a strong federal government is more conducive to tyranny. None of these things have anything to do with the concept of deserving. In my opinion, deserving or not, is a weak argument.

Great post. I feel this is the first post here counter to my personal beliefs that was actually intelligent and logical (and not filled with cursing). A lot of people have their opinion to what they think will motivate taxpayers and what is considered fair. Obviously, as a whole, Republican policy caters most towards doctors and those of substantial wealth. But what you are saying about how lucky you are to be in your current position is very refreshing to hear, because it is true. edmadison: you've made some good points too. I guess we'll just have to see how much of Obama's policy he carries through with.

For a great run-down of potential tax reforms, check out this study, a Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/ done by President Bush's bipartisan panel. In particular, for a short discussion about the Flat Tax, you can go to Chapter 4, page 15 of the PDF or 55 of the overall study. This entire report shows arguments for and against many potential tax policies, with suggestions being made for each. While this study is a few years old, it is still very compelling, very informative, and about as authoritative as you can get.

 

[Suprahelical]

No? I'm about as conservative as they come fiscally (I didn't vote for Obama), but I acknowledge that luck has a lot to do with where I am at now. I was born here and not in a 3rd world country, or 400 years ago. I had a two parent home. My parents are well educated and wealthy. My high school was and is ranked in the top 20 in the country by some academic performance measures. I am free of substantial genetic defect. I appear to have more raw intellectual ability than 99% of the population. I have dealt with no significant or untimely deaths in my immediate family or friendset. I am not mentally ill. Those are all lucky things. I do work hard and I deserve credit for that, but your attitude is a kind of logic trap. My logic for low taxes isn't about "deserve" or moral judgment of laziness of the unwashed masses. I support a flat tax because I believe 1) it's better for the economy 2) it makes more sense from a motivational sense (everyone should pay something) 3) It would limit the class warfare battle that grabs every election. I support private healthcare and privitization of social security because the government has never shown competence in administering or dealing with these types of activities. Medicaid is, basically, forced charity on docs. I support de-centralized government because a strong federal government is more conducive to tyranny. None of these things have anything to do with the concept of deserving. In my opinion, deserving or not, is a weak argument.

You do appear to be lucky. I however wasn't near as "lucky" as you. I was acutally born in Venezuela where my parents were separated and was brought to America at the age of 4 with my grandmother. I attended a podunk public school in east tennessee and busted my *ss. My parents barely graduated high school. You have no idea what others have been through, so don't try to compare.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

What people are missing about the tax hikes is the proposal to remove the cap on the payroll "tax". Currently, you don't pay social security tax on income greater than about 102,000 (IIRC). That's because the tax is tied to your future benefit which is also capped. One of Obama's proposals is to remove this cap. That will result in a 14% increase in taxation on income over 100K, or only 7% for those who employers prefer not to pass their part.

I'm pretty sure his payroll tax plan leaves a "doughnut" b/t 102k and 250k, and it's not the full 7% (14 if you have to pay both), but 2% (or 4% if you have to pay both) on anything above 250K

 

[Miami_med]

I've noticed the change in the payroll taxes as well. That is DANGEROUS. This money lacks any sort of deduction, it will never be politically correct to take it away, it is not tax deductable, you still pay taxes on the money that you pay the payroll taxes with, and it WILL become the method for trying to keep a poorly run system afloat by hitting everyone with an essentially unavoidable tax.

The 3%, while still based on stupid arguments is probably the amount that we'll just bounce back and forth between elections. Also, repealing a tax cut IS a tax increase. Since marginal tax rates in the US were >90% at one time, this sort of argument would mean that a raise in marginal tax rates to 89% would simply be repealing Kennedy's tax cut.

And to the guy quoting Adam Smith, kudos on that. However, I am a strong capitalist politically, and while I appreciate the contributions of Adam Smith, I am not a Smithite. His early theory I always thought focused too much on the contribution of labor to the final price of goods, and an explanation of how things work isn't necessarily an argument to justify how they ought to. Also, within the current system, the bottom 20% pay ~0%. The top 2% of earners pay >50%, so I would say that the far supercedes any argument about not paying in proportion (or even out of proportion) of earnings.

There is something funadmentally wrong with generating a large group of people who contribute nothing and then let them vote themselves political benefits that they will then vote to pay for with other people's money. Everyone ought to contribute if we are going to have a big government and a tax system on all income, and all new spending ought to be looked at through the glass that everyone would have to contribute to it. This would probably alter the way that EVERYTHING runs in this country. We could figure out the appropriate role of the government pretty quickly by letting people vote only for changes in spending that they had to help support themselves.

 

[shotdiscus]

I like how people seem oblivious to the fact that it doesn't really matter what Obama wants to do as much as what Pelosi et al are going to push through (and you know they're going to have a field day when congress reconvenes). How much of that do you think Obama is going to veto?

I also like how people ignore capital gains taxes.

 

[Green Penguin]

For a great run-down of potential tax reforms, check out this study, a Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/ done by President Bush's bipartisan panel. In particular, for a short discussion about the Flat Tax, you can go to Chapter 4, page 15 of the PDF or 55 of the overall study. This entire report shows arguments for and against many potential tax policies, with suggestions being made for each. While this study is a few years old, it is still very compelling, very informative, and about as authoritative as you can get.

Great post. I found this interesting:

The Panel first asked the Treasury Department to determine the required rate structure to achieve revenue neutrality with a "broad" income tax base. The broad individual income tax base would retain only the standard deduction and personal exemptions. All credits, above-the-line deductions, itemized deductions, and other special preferences in our tax code would be eliminated. [emphasis added] The broad base would also eliminate the AMT. The individual and corporate tax systems would be integrated so that income taxed at the business level would not be taxed again at the individual level; meaning that the double tax on corporate profits would be eliminated. All capital gains would be taxed at ordinary rates, and tax-favored savings or retirement vehicles would be eliminated. The broad corporate income tax base would eliminate corporate tax preferences. Depreciation deductions would allow taxpayers to deduct the actual decline in the value of a capital asset over the taxable period (which is known as "economic depreciation"). The top rates for the individual income tax and corporate income tax would be equal. The Treasury Department estimated that adopting this broad base would make it possible to reduce tax rates across the board by about one-third. As Figure 4.2 shows, the lowest individual rate, currently at 10 percent, could be lowered to 6.6 percent, and the highest rate (which also applies to corporate income), 35 percent, could be lowered to 23 percent. Alternatively, the Treasury Department found that the graduated rate structure could be replaced with a single rate of 15 percent and maintain revenue neutrality.

TAKE OUT THE LOOPHOLES! If everyone accepted that there would be no special treatment, the tax code it would immediately become much more transparent and simple, tax rates on EVERYONE would fall precipitously while retaining the same amount of revenue for the federal government. AND to boot, the simplicity of the tax code would reduce paperwork and compliance costs for small business and the IRS would no longer have to administer a burdensome tax code, thus reducing the operating costs of the federal gov. as well.

 

[dragonfly99]

That is interesting, greenpenguin.
I would not, however, support an across the board 15% tax rate. It would be ridiculous if someone making 18,000/year had to pay the same % of his/her income as someone making 218,000/year. The person making 18k is just scraping by...
But I do think it is reasonable to revisit simplifying our tax code (i.e. getting rid of deductions). Just keep in mind that means no Lifetime Learning Credit, no itemizing deduction, and no student loan interest tax deduction for us.
I think I'd end up paying more than what I currently do.

 

[TMP-SMX]

That is interesting, greenpenguin.
I would not, however, support an across the board 15% tax rate. It would be ridiculous if someone making 18,000/year had to pay the same % of his/her income as someone making 218,000/year. The person making 18k is just scraping by...
But I do think it is reasonable to revisit simplifying our tax code (i.e. getting rid of deductions). Just keep in mind that means no Lifetime Learning Credit, no itemizing deduction, and no student loan interest tax deduction for us.
I think I'd end up paying more than what I currently do.

As it stands now medical students and residents who start to pay off interest have a very low cap on interest deductions anyway ($2500). It barely helps now. It's nice to have, but it's negligible. There are also the tuition deductions, but when you have 0 income as a student what's the point.

 

[Wacaggie]

TMP-SMX,

There is one thing missing about your statement. As soon as you start earning over $105,000 and $135,000 for joint tax return filers ($50,000 and $65,000 for single tax return filers) you start to lose the interest deduction as it phases out completly at the maximum income for both single and joint filers. You will only get the benifit of the interest deduction while you are a resident, that is only if you are not defering payment on your loans and actually paying down the interest. Just hope that you can pay off your loans quickly (or that you have a great rate on your loans) if you will be making more than $65,000 single or $135,000 married a year out of residency because you won't get the deduction anyways. So really you will get very little help from these credits and deductions unless you are married and your spouse doesn't take home a doctor's salary. I married my wife while she was a MS1 so luckly we got the lifetime learning credit each year and hopefully we will be able to take advantage of the deduction during her years as a resident depending on where we land in the phase out territory.

 

[TMP-SMX]

Yeah I'm aware of the phasing out of the interest deduction with income. Since deferment is going out the window after this year I will be able to use the interest deduction for at least 3 years depending on what I want to do specialty wise. My fiancée (wife by that point) will be graduating from undergrad to do teaching around the same time I graduate from med school so we won't be making over that in the beginning.

 

[dragonfly99]

I haven't found the student loan interest deduction to be negligible. This my 5th year of getting/using it, and one can save several hundred dollars/year in taxes...so it's not total chump change by any means.

 

[LADoc00]

I haven't found the student loan interest deduction to be negligible. This my 5th year of getting/using it, and one can save several hundred dollars/year in taxes...so it's not total chump change by any means.

Hmm In confused, several hundred dollars isnt chump change? then what is to you? 20 bucks?

Regardless, college borrowing costs are completely out of control and will be phase 2 of the economic meltdown.

Trust me, Sallie Mae will be happily granting loan "write downs" in the very near future when hundreds if not millions of people simply stop servicing their monthly educational debt.

 

[dragonfly99]

LAdoc
If you make 200-300k then I guess a few hundred dollars a year is chump change,
But for a resident or fellow making 45k, saving a few hunred/year (say $500 per year for 5 years) isn't exactly chump change...

 

[Miami_med]

I'd be pretty supportive of a completely flat tax rate that started with a deduction for an amount that covered basic needs. Of course, since I don't really believe that the government should do about 90% of what they do, we'd all probably wildly disagree on what that rate should be. The arguments about scraping by really fall apart if you simply placed that deduction at an amount that was no longer scraping by.

We could all argue about the specifics of this amount, but I don't see what is inherintly unfair about people paying the same percentage. 15% of 10,000 is $1500, while 15% of 100,000 is $15,000. This is already a much bigger tax burden on the higher income. If you placed a deduction, it also sort of makes a flat tax progressive (not that this is the goal). If you give a deduction of say, $10,000 per person in a household, a family of 3 making $40,000 a year would pay $1500 (3.7%), while a family of 3 making 100,000 would pay $10,500 (>10%). This is approximately 3 times the percentage rate. We already have heavy deductions at the low end, so the current system only makes the tax rate doubly progressive. It also encourages the moral hazard of having people vote themeselves benefits by taxing other people. The current "progressive" tax structure is largely the result of picking a big income number that most people don't make and choosing to tax "those rich people" who are essentially a minority by promising the majority benefits at their expense. True class warfare.

 

[Wacaggie]

I agree with the flat progressive tax. The only things I would change about what you said were to add some sort of diminishing returns on the per person deduction. The second thing I would want to change would be to have a minimum tax to be paid by all even after deductions. This would be something very small like 1% or less. I believe that if people want the government to do anything for them, like protect them with a military, then everyone should pay something into the system, even if it is a very small amount. If it is the "rich" people's patriotic duty to take on the majority of the tax burden then I think it is everyone’s patriotic duty to contribute even a paltry sum of 1% of their income.

 

[MiguelSanchez]

Are you freakin' serious? I should SHARE MY F'in money w/ poor grungy worthless bums? I'm LUCKY? The money that I busted my ass to EARN by studying all those AP classes in high school and to be valedictorian, taking the highest level chem/bio classes all throughout college and graduate summa cum laude, and to laboriously memorize biochemical pathways throughout 4 arduous years of medical school to graduate with highest honors, now to bust my ass in 5-6 long years of residency?

Where I come from, we call that EARNING a living. That is the true American dream that has been swept out from under our feet. Why would anyone work when they can take government handouts now, from me?

Luck had not one god d*mned thing to do with where I'm at now, and it won't have a f*ckin thing to do with how I figure out how to get around this BS.

Seriously... I don't think that me or my family have been any more lucky than 99% of those who would be benefiting from redistribution. For one, I am going to be financially BEHIND a kid with a high school education working at any job he can get while I was in college. This is probably true at least until I am 45 (and I went straight through everything). Also, I made an active choice to study hard in high school, college, med school. Maybe it is a cultural issue, that a lot of these people grew up in a society that for whatever reason frowned upon academic achievement, but it's still a choice. And most of those in that kind of situation have a distinct advantage in college and medical school admissions.

I have worked hard to get a good job, and the only luck I have had is that I have not had some overwhelming hardships (which ironically becomes a detriment to my goal). In fact I made a conscious decision to go into a field that has less earning potential and higher initial investment (300k+ in loans). Now, if Obama is successful at pushing through this plan, and he gets re-elected (and he probably will, since he will get all the credit when the economy turns itself around), he will be taking thousands of dollars out of my pocket as I try to pay down my student loans and start my family.

 

[shotdiscus]

It also encourages the moral hazard of having people vote themeselves benefits by taxing other people. The current "progressive" tax structure is largely the result of picking a big income number that most people don't make and choosing to tax "those rich people" who are essentially a minority by promising the majority benefits at their expense. True class warfare.

The current tax/politics environment is equivalent to two wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner