"If you want to discuss national tax policy then I would say we need to increase the lowest tax brackets by one or two percent a year for a couple years in a row until we create some balance and sense in our tax code. "
The LOWEST tax brackets??? Yea…that makes sense…Lets make the extreme poor suffer even more…Yup…that makes sense.
For balance out of our tax code…Let’s go back to the tax system when this country was founded…Only business’s and land owners paid taxes…Let’s put the burden of the tax back on them like out founding fathers wanted.
The extreme poor are not paying tax anyways, and neither are most people making less than $60,000 a year. Instead we have a ‘progressive’ tax policy that punishes success and rewards laziness.
I would actually support your tax businesses and land owners philosophy if the tax rate was adequate to only fund nation security and national (not state) infrastructure, but seeing as how almost all US citizens have the benefit of social security and medicare then all should participate in the national funding of the government. There should not be a 25% disparity among people who pay taxes and we should let no one who receives federal money to get out of their responsibility to help fund the government.
Flat tax, fair tax; I do not care which, but not this tax system that we have now.
“The government wants to mandate air bags, backup cameras, tire pressure monitors, where does it end?”
If you take a look at every mandated safety device for our vehicles (or home or appliance) you’ll be able to follow the money to the TRILLION DOLLAR insurance industry. They’ve lobbied for almost every safety device you can think of (seat-belts, air-bags, tire-pressure monitors, crumple-zones…) for homes (the electrical code is full of codes brought about by insurance lobbying).
Insurance companies have been lobbying for years to be able to disallow claims for anyone injured in a accident who wasn’t wearing a seat-belt.
". Additionally, we need to exploit our natural gas reserves and provide a positive environment for private companies (not government and without federal subsidies) to pursue green technologies "
You do know that Natural Gas and oil will eventually be depleted??? Maybe not in our lifetime or our children’s but it’s going to happen.
As for Solar Panels…they’re now far more efficient then they were just 10 years ago…And there’s further development with them using a multi-layer approach that could increase their efficiency by a factor of 10. There’s a lot of new technology coming out…Many of which is funded by our government.
I think it’s been proven pretty well over the past 50 years…that big-oil does NOT have our best interest in mind…
I don’t think the tax system is fair at all either…but I’m sorry to say it…but taxing the poor is NOT the way to make it fair…Taxing the super rich is a good start. If you make over 60k a year…you do know that you paid more tax then GE did last year??? How about we start with these damn loopholes that corporate America has exploited HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars from. The amount of money the poor don’t pay in tax’s is miniscule compared to Corporate Welfare.
Solar panels are okay and better than they were in the past, but government subsidies have helped a poor industry survive which should have gone back to the drawing boards many years ago.
Regarding GE: I agree that it is reprehensible that we have a tax code that let GE pay no taxes, but let’s face it the reason they were able to get away with it is because of many vote buying schemes from our wonderful US Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike). Unfortunately, the idea of ‘tax the rich’ does not work either. It is the ‘rich’ who start businesses, hire employees, and invest in other business allowing the economy to grow. With the current tax rates in place it makes no sense to increase the burden of these people.
I will agree with you Mike that we should close corporate welfare, stop subsidies for weak industries, and should ensure that people pay their fair tax rate. I personally believe that this includes making everyone contribute something just so that we all own a share in the US. In corporate terms you do not own a stock in GE unless you spend the money to buy the stock. Likewise people do not own stock in the US unless they contribute the the national treasury. Unfortunately, when they do not own a share in the success of the nation then they only work to get as much as they can for themselves regardless of how it hurts as a whole (ownership changes peoples’ mentalities).
It is worth noting that in 2008 the top 5% of income earner (making $159K or more per year) paid 58% of federal income tax while the bottom 50% (making $33K or less per year) paid 2.7% of the total federal income tax. That top 5% includes businesses that could use the extra capital to hire new employees or expand the business.
Tax evenly, tax fair, flat tax. All Americans pay the same percentage to the treasury.
Agator82: “If you want to help end the dependence on foreign oil then you go full bore drilling domestically.”
Sure … and we can cure cocaine addiction by teaching addicts to make their own cocaine.
After seeing the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the spill in Alaska, and the spill off the coast of Africa, and the spill in Utah, and the spill in … oh, you get the point … and after seeing the push by Republicans to deregulate the industry, I have to wonder, will the country we would be left with be worth saving? I love taking road trips because it means I get to see some of the USA’s pristine wildlife and landscapes. If people like you get your way, there won’t be any left. The beaches of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, California, North and South Carolina, and Georgia will be an oily mess of tar balls and dead wildlife. The wilderness of Alaska will be nothing more than an industrialized wasteland. The only people to benefit will be the oil companies, who already hold leases to drill for oil domestically, but choose not to use them. Instead, they convince people like you to do their dirtywork and destroy what makes the USA a wonderful place to live.
Teddy Roosevelt must be turning in his grave to see what has become of the Republican party. Richard Nixon must be turning in his grave to see Republicans attack his EPA. Does anyone else remember when Republicans gave a crap about preserving America’s treasures?
"I see no problem what so ever given the direction models are taking now. A few hybrids, an EV or two and the fleet average needs just a few truck/suv conversions to 6 and 4 cylinder turbos, and we are there. We won’t even feel a difference in cost except for those who go all EV with puddle jumpers and gas prices will still rise, oil companies will make their profit quotas on fewer gallons sold and every one is happy. "
I disagree. There is only one vehicle available today that gets better than 56.2 MPG combined city/highway. That’s the Nissan Leaf. The next closest is the Prius at 50 MPG. Almost doubling fleet fuel economy in the next 14 years will be an immense problem. There are only 2 electric vehicles available: Leaf and Smart Fortwo. Sure, there are others coming (13 announced), but they will not all be available until 2014. It’s reasonable to assume that others will be after 2014. And none of the cars has a range anywhere close to even half that of an ICE car except Tesla, and they are very expensive. We need to double or triple the range of electric cars. We need to increase average hybrid mileage by 50%. We need to increase battery production by several thousand percent. We have a Copper Canyon to cross to get there, and 14 years seems like a very short time period when compared to the goal.
“It is the ‘rich’ who start businesses, hire employees, and invest in other business allowing the economy to grow.”
Well…let’s see…since we’ve LOST approximately 30 million plus jobs outsourced to Asia and other parts of the world…They’re NOT doing a very good job at it are they…
Jack Welch (ex CEO of GE) philosophy is to (keep management here in the US) and move ALL manufacturing and engineering to cheaper labor markets…MANY MANY companies have adopted this philosophy over the past 30 years…So don’t tell me that they grow the economy…that hasn’t happened in over 30 years. Sure you’ll find segments of growth…but as a whole…NO…The fat cats do NOT want to grow the economy…It’s in their best interest to move as many jobs overseas as possible.
Make sure you ignore the double taxation of business income or the high cost to repatriate capital in the US, or the huge uncertainty that the US government has created over the last 10+ years for business, or the excessive regulation and reporting requirements.
Oh, I before I forget there is the ‘spend our way out of recession’ mindset that has plagued us for the last three years that has lead to the lax printing of dollars as well as any other scheme the Federal Reserve and Treasury have been able to force down out throats.
Businesses are working to make money, wow there is a newsflash! The question you need to ask is why is it so tempting to move manufacturing operations overseas and what can we do to foster that attitude back to our shores.
Since we believe that Americans will not accept lower wages then we need to provide incentives elsewhere. Perhaps provide a more equitable tax code which treats people fairly and equally instead of punishing success, except for those who make large campaign contributions.
No, it takes time for an economy to sour, but everything that has happened in the last few years has only worked to extend and prolong the suffering instead of letting market corrections happen. From TARP onward we have not done anything to strength the economy only keep it on the lowest rung possible.
The problem is more systemic and originates, as a poster said earlier, with the bean counters. You can not bring down an organism as large as the US economy with on bullet, but many many bullets over time can pull it down. I will agree the problems go back decades, but here we are now. Are we going to fix it or just keep dragging our knuckles and ‘hope’ it gets better. It seems that out political parties favor the latter.
“Businesses are working to make money, wow there is a newsflash! The question you need to ask is why is it so tempting to move manufacturing operations overseas and what can we do to foster that attitude back to our shores.”
So you’re saying that an engineer with 20 years experience should take a job in the US paying $9,000/yr??? Because that’s what they are paying the same workers doing the same job in China.
Or factory workers here in the US should be paid $2.00/day because that’s what other factory workers are getting paid in Vietnam???
“Agator82 12:42AM Report
I have to say I am strongly against government mandates on many car issues including this one. The government wants to mandate air bags, backup cameras, tire pressure monitors, where does it end? If you want to help end the dependence on foreign oil then you go full bore drilling domestically.”
We simply can’t get to being energy independent by full bore drilling in the US. There isn’t enough here.
The ONLY way I see it is to find alternative energy…Many new renewable technologies are on the horizon. And there is a Business interest in blocking many of these technologies…Some of these new technologies if they come to fruition would mean an end to the National Grid. No more costly electric bills…or power lines…
It is worth noting that in 2008 the top 5% of income earner (making $159K or more per year) paid 58% of federal income tax while the bottom 50% (making $33K or less per year) paid 2.7% of the total federal income tax
It is worth noting that your numbers are highly misleading.
In 2007 (the last year for which CBO has published data), the top 5% paid 61% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60% paid 1.3% of all federal income taxes.
However, the top 5% had 32.3% of all income, while the bottom 60% had just 25.5%. The top 5% averaged $611,200 in income. The bottom 60% averaged $41,222 in income.
And you’re only considering income taxes. There are plenty of other federal taxes that somehow these arguments miss. What about Social Insurance? Much of that revenue is spent like general tax revenue, but somehow that doesn’t count? There’s a regressive tax. Excise taxes? What about those? The bottom 20% pays 16 times the excise tax rate of the top 1 percent.
Overall, the top 5% pays 44.3% of all federal taxes on 32.3% of all income, at an effective rate of 27.9%. The bottom 60% pays 14.4% of all federal taxes on 25.5% of all income, at an effective rate of 11.5%. Is this unfair? Maybe, but it is FAR more fair than you make it out to be. And do you really think you can squeeze more out of the bottom 20%, who have an average household income of $18,400 per year?
I disagree. There is only one vehicle available today that gets better than 56.2 MPG combined city/highway. That’s the Nissan Leaf. The next closest is the Prius at 50 MPG.
The dirty little secret is that your combined mpg you see on your sticker is NOT what counts towards the CAFE limits. CAFE limits are calculated using the old EPA test methods, which have been revised downwards twice, resulting in lower mpg both times. A car that has 50 mpg combined today actually counts as near 70 mpg for CAFE standards.
Even the Fusion hybrid, at 39 mpg sticker, would darn near hit the 56 mpg mark for CAFE standards.
For example, in 2003, the CAFE standard was 27.5 mpg, but the entire US passenger car fleet hit 29.5 mpg. At the same time, these were the only cars that had 30 mpg or greater combined mpg on their sticker:
Honda Insight
Honda Civic Hybrid
VW New Beetle (Diesel only)
VW Golf (Diesel only)
VW Jetta (Diesel only)
Honda Civic (1.7L)
Toyota Echo
Toyota Corolla (Manual only)
Toyota Prius
Clearly those vehicles didn’t add up to half of all passenger car sales in 2004…
“CAFE limits are calculated using the old EPA test methods”
How can we calculate the old EPA mileage used for CAFE calculations? It would be interesting to check a few more cars. You tossed out a few numbers, but did not say how you arrived at them.
@eraser1998 June 28 @bscar - but why should taxes be level? The SUV driver in your example is simply driving far less than the Prius owner, and therefore is actually making the country less dependent on imported energy than the Prius owner. Why should he have to pay more in taxes than the Prius owner?
Because SUVs/trucks are great scapegoats. People frown on them for getting lousy fuel mileage and want to penalize people who drive them.
What they don’t realize is that if a business gets taxed heavily for buying a large truck because they need one, the customer will get charged more because of it. That $100 job to cut down a tree now becomes $150 or $200 to recover the added cost. And lets see a Prius owner get that couch or fridge moved when they move to a new house.
There’s also another reason there’s not gonna be a huge increase is fuel taxes; political suicide. Any elected member that says they’re for a tax increase on fuel, especially with the economy the way it is, might just as well say “This is where I live, this is what I drive, come burn my house down and key my car”