https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
...the real problem seems to be that taxes on the rich and the corporate taxes have declined over time to very low levels. See the charts in the link above. So instead of fighting over how to spend the smaller federal budget, we need to start collecting taxes from the rich again and there will be more than enough money for the programs we need.

@hauta

what you're looking at is different from historical old rates. yes we are "low" but the old eisenhower 90% tax rates, NEVER collected that much.

it's the average tax rate vs the REAL tax rate.

how to calculate this: look at gov't taxes collected. there use to be SO many more deductions and exemptions

we've never taxed our rich at super high levels. in fact, some of our most prosperous times have been at lower real (collected)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/jce.pdf

Yan, no one ever argued that the Bush tax cuts favored the poor. If we repealed them, the rich would pay more taxes. Taxes at a Bill Clinton era level, not Ike.

40% seems already like quite a lot. Why should the Federal Government get half of someone's income?

Oh, Hauta. You can't be serious. Our corporate tax rate is too low?? It's the third highest in the world behind only Puerto Rico and the United Arab Emirates (one of which is really the U.S. anyway). That means the U.S. is in the top 2% for highest taxes on corporations in the world. Are we trying to set a world record for how unfriendly to business we can be or something?

the taxes on the poor and middle class are too low

@Hauta

well sorry if i don't like taxing the rich because government creates regulation and barriers to entry in markets that promote monopolies, all the while creating dependency programs.

by saying raise taxes, you're expanding gov't and expanding dependency programs. meanwhile, the expanded gov't creates more regulations, solidifying monopolies or thinning out oligopolies.

thus rich get fewer competitors, and the poor stay trapped.

congratulations gov't

you have perfectly failed

@CAPT

relatively low perhaps, although EVERYONE'S tax rates are too high

"the taxes on the poor and middle class are too low"

Because having the poor and the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income is a fantastic way to solve a growing class discrepancy and increase the odds of poor people moving toward the middle classes and middle class people moving toward the upper classes.

besides the tax is on income. rich people don't have incomes they have other means of collecting money. as a landlord, i can reduce my tax with various loopholes that allow me to collect a rental income but no tax. what is needed is a change in the tax code that collects from other things besides income or capital gains. here is a shocker. homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage; take away that loophole and they pay taxes.

@abge and @Manwe, taxes collected at the Pre-Bush levels are always lower than the stated rate.
@yan, taken to your logical conclusion, tax rates should be set to zero. But I already know that @Brad thinks we should tax enough to spend on the military, and we're kinda stuck having to pay for entitlement promises. Altogether, I think that's approx 3/4ths of the budget. There's relatively little for "dependency programs".

@bo

maybe we should stop expanding dependency programs, and make sure they're temporary programs at best.

and Capt is right, too many damn loopholes in the law right now (thanks Democrats!)

i went round on this one before. my daughter owed $34.00 in taxes; but the IRS sent that back on top of her refund. it wouldn't have harmed my daughter to pay that money. that is the problem: most people pay $0. those nickles and dimes add up.

What does that ^ paragraph mean?

@hauta

no... the military is 16% of the budget, nice try. i'm fine with taxes for national defense and interstate roads, 0% is too little. back in the days of old you could get away with a 4% rate, but nowadays i think we're hovering around 8% on the libertarian side

we pay too much in entitlements. there is no reason that a healthy adult should receive an entitlement payment for more than three years consecutive or five years aggregate.

"stuck having to pay entitlement promises"

pay what we have now, AND STOP EXPANDING.

jesus how hard is that to understand? stop accepting people to the programs, and destroy our more burdensome laws: includes taking away state's rights in regulating things

What does that ^ paragraph mean?

it means that she could afford to pay that small amount but didn't. the IRS added that to her refund. she paid zero to the treasury for income tax.

@yan, yes military is approx 16%, but when you add in Sosec and Medicare, you get up to approx 75%. I'm saying that for 75% of the budget, right off the bat, it's hard to cut expenses.

Look at Trump in 2005 where he made $150 million and had an effective tax rate of about 25%. He's in the highest tax bracket, but he used the law to whittle down h
is tax bill.

The rich always find a way to cut their taxes and if they don't then they deserve to pay.

How is mortgage interest deduction a "loophole". It's one of the primary benefits of homeownership and was purposefully put into the tax code to help the housing market. Not really a "loophole".

@James ... "dependency" programs are the responsibility of a centralized government in today's world whether you or I like it or not and make up for the fact that a system that is capitalistic by nature must have losers that need dependency programs in order to exist. If you want to eliminate "dependency" programs, eliminate capitalism and then we'll talk. Otherwise, all you're doing is leaving the poorest of the poor to fend for themselves without assistance while the rest of us watch in ignorant silence.

If you have a more constructive solution, such as phasing out *specific* programs, let me know. Otherwise, cap it.

@Hauta

um... no it's easy. stop collecting social security taxes, and take in the rest as debt.

i'm probably the most stringent opponent of the debt, but SS is ridiculous.

PS when you take into account pensions/SS Clinton had a deficit. national debt on aggregate including public and government holdings INCREASED under clinton.

he's not some genius, he's just sleazy

And what abge said ^^

@yan, @Brad, If the federal government created a program that added more to the economy than private investment could do, would you be against it? I'm thinking mission to the moon stuff from the 1960s. Sounds like you'd be against it.

Bump up the age of SS by a few years. That should help out a bit. Was never meant to support people for 20+ years.

Not really a "loophole".

yes that is the definition of a tax loophole, the interest rate deduction. the rich are not the only ones who get loopholes

@yan, you do realize that under Clinton, America had its first budget SURPLUS in well over 100 years!

That tax loophole on interest payments on loans against investment properties is a thing the Howard "Liberal" ( actually the Conservatives in Australi Federal government bought in about twenty years ago when the mining boom fed the government huge tax revenues ( which collapsed in 2000's ).. There's a big tax break on capital gains and what is called "negative gearing" ..debt funded property investment.. It's become a huge "structural cost" embedded in our Federal budget...but hey, why should wealthy property investors ( the greatest beneficiaries ) pay tax ? Plus we get a "wonderful" upward spiralling bubble in property prices, especially in our biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne.. So now young couples struggle to purchase their first property.
Shit, let's just make the poorest people pay tax, like that'll fix deficits.. Put Capt Brad in charge and let him either fix all the problems, he's always got an answer to everything, ......or he can F*** it all up for all time.