Will you still go to law school if the US defaults? Forum

[scammedhard]

I sense a lot of speculation in this thread. So, to facilitate the discussion, here is a graph about "Total Effective Tax Rate by Household Quintile, 1979-2005:"
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ctive.html

[lawgod]

Paying billions in taxes on the billions of dollars they make each year. You are right that's ridiculous. Also how much did GE pay in taxes last year? Oh thats right.

GE is a corporation. The people paid taxes on the dividends, or the sale of stock. And some of those people are right poor.

[deadhipsters]

Paying billions in taxes on the billions of dollars they make each year. You are right that's ridiculous. Also how much did GE pay in taxes last year? Oh thats right.

GE is a corporation. The people paid taxes on the dividends, or the sale of stock. And some of those people are right poor.

True. But in all fairness the tax debate in Congress was on both corporate and personal tax. But valid point. Limit the discussion to personal income tax.

[lawgod]

I sense a lot of speculation in this thread. So, to facilitate the discussion, here is a graph about "Total Effective Tax Rate by Household Quintile, 1979-2005:"
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ctive.html

It says: "Michael Kruse has a detailed post on the total effective tax rate (including income, payroll, and excise taxes) by household quintile, 1979-2005, based on CBO data. Here is one of many interesting charts:"

So I'm guessing it doesn't include sales tax, local income tax, property tax, hidden taxes levied by taxing the companies we buy stuff from.
Well, where I live, sales tax is about 10%, so that is another 10% of your earnings or so which you can't spend, right there.
Property tax is pretty high also.
State income tax is something like 5%.

[lawgod]

Paying billions in taxes on the billions of dollars they make each year. You are right that's ridiculous. Also how much did GE pay in taxes last year? Oh thats right.

GE is a corporation. The people paid taxes on the dividends, or the sale of stock. And some of those people are right poor.

True. But in all fairness the tax debate in Congress was on both corporate and personal tax. But valid point. Limit the discussion to personal income tax.

Fair

[scammedhard]

And also consider that inequality has greatly increased in the US:

[lawgod]

And also consider that inequality has greatly increased in the US:

"And excludes government transfers"

[ajr]

If you think getting rich in America is based on merit or hard work, you don't understand Wall Street life.

Fixed.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

[lawgod]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

And I. I just want to be open about what I'm advocating, if I do.

[helloperson]

This squabbling about tax policy and economic fairness in a thread about the debt default is exactly the same problem that Washington is having right now.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

And I. I just want to be open about what I'm advocating, if I do.

Came off badly, but it was meant to continue the fairness discussion.

[Tiago Splitter]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

"This squabbling about tax policy and economic fairness in a thread about the debt default is exactly the same problem that Washington is having right now."

Try to keep up. It has already been established that no default will be occurring.

[helloperson]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

"This squabbling about tax policy and economic fairness in a thread about the debt default is exactly the same problem that Washington is having right now."

Try to keep up. It has already been established that no default will be occurring.

My laziness and failure to follow the political discussion in this thread is exactly the problem that the American public is having.

[deadhipsters]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

"This squabbling about tax policy and economic fairness in a thread about the debt default is exactly the same problem that Washington is having right now."

Try to keep up. It has already been established that no default will be occurring.

I'd like to see a lower tax rate that would be effective in doing that. Not that I don't believe it could happen... I'd just like to see it.

[lawgod]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

Hmmm. So you think households of 10 children should pay the same amount as a single person?

[Tiago Splitter]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

Hmmm. So you think households of 10 children should pay the same amount as a single person?

Same rate, yes.

[witorres89]

The US won't default, so it is not an issue. 200 Billion a month in revenue should be just enough to pay 25 billion in interest. 3% on the ten year is all you need to know.

and housing prices will never go down because markets are perfect.

[lawgod]

Look, when it comes down to it, I am not completely against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as conservative as I am. If we are going to keep the brackets, we need to expand the number brackets. Fact is, people who make around $250,000 (Obama's models and bottles level) should not be taxed at the same rate as those who make $50 million a year.

Lower rates and get rid of all the deductions and credits. No need for social engineering and a tax system that requires Americans spending $200 billion a year just to properly file.

Hmmm. So you think households of 10 children should pay the same amount as a single person?

Same rate, yes.

Same rate? You mean then have deductions and exemptions? Isn't that what you are arguing against?

[Tiago Splitter]

Same rate? You mean then have deductions and exemptions? Isn't that what you are arguing against?

No. Not sure why you are confused. PM for details

[The Valkyrie]

We should get rid of child-related tax breaks, if for no other reason than discouraging people from increasing the population.

[IAFG]

If you think getting rich in America is based on merit or hard work, you don't understand Wall Street.

Sometimes it is based on being smart. Sometimes it is based on your father's hard work or being smart.

Sometimes to get rich by taking a cut off loans that the government guarantees, effectively shielding you from any risk.

[JCougar]

This is why it's mostly political theater.

The debt is something that is more of a long-term problem. There's definitely not an emergency. Yet it gives politicians on both sides of the aisle a convenient excuse to implement policies that reduce the standard of living for the middle class.

If you take away the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan wars, we'd practically have a balanced budget. It's not a major issue.

What? Are you saying that a default is not a big deal? I really hope not

Default is a big deal, but virtually nobody really thinks we will default.

[JCougar]

If you take away the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan wars, we'd practically have a balanced budget. It's not a major issue.

I lol'd

Why did you lol'd? The statement may not be completely true, but the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan wars are a big part of the deficit.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490

Because four years ago, a 450-500 billion dollar deficit would have been a record. Even without the tax cuts and war costs we would still have a record deficit according to your graph. And don't forget that the deficit in 2007 was 160 billion, long after those costs had been absorbed.

My main concern with trying to pin it all on those two factors is that it ignores the fundamental problems that aren't going away.

If you account for yet another unfunded Bush program, Medicare Part D, it virtually covers the rest of the deficit.

The debt has not been caused by out of control entitlement spending or big bureaucratic liberal government. It's been almost primarily the fault of bad, horrible, horrible policy and fiscal recklessness by the Bush Administration and the Republican congress that enabled him. The small part of the deficit that remains after accounting for that is a result of decreced tax receipts due to the poor economy, which is mostly a result of an economically libertarian attitude toward financial regulation. "Big-government socialism" has virtually nothing to do with it.

[crossarmant]

The debt has not been caused by out of control entitlement spending or big bureaucratic liberal government. It's been almost primarily the fault of bad, horrible, horrible policy and fiscal recklessness by the Bush Administration and the Republican congress that enabled him. The small part of the deficit that remains after accounting for that is a result of decreced tax receipts due to the poor economy, which is mostly a result of an economically libertarian attitude toward financial regulation. "Big-government socialism" has virtually nothing to do with it.

+1

I find it humorous how people who rail against spending have no problem blowing tons and tons of dough on stuff they think is worthwhile... like spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, tax cuts for those who really do not need them, etc. Yet when it comes time to trim the fat, we cut NASA funding, education, etc. Remember the surplus of Clinton.

The U.S. really is an empire, just like it predecessors, it'll fall and divide into separate nations and domains.