What if 50 million Pro-Lifers stopped paying income taxes simultaneously?

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

It's just a fact that even the $200,000/year definition of "rich" will hammer a lot of people, particularly farmers and small business people, who don't have anywhere near $200,000 in discretionary income, but whose tax returns would show, in some years, $200,000 adjustable gross income.

I just don't see it. Any farmer or small business person who is filling out his taxes properly will be able to deduct all expenses directly related to the running of the business. That includes maintenance on the tractors, salaries for hired workers, materials used for production, and even property taxes. So the $200,000/year that is left over after all those deductions really is mostly discretionary income (except for what a family needs to live - i.e. food, clothing, healthcare, housing, education.) Being a farmer or a small business person does not automatically raise these expenses above what an ordinary worker would need.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

I just don't see it. Any farmer or small business person who is filling out his taxes properly will be able to deduct all expenses directly related to the running of the business. That includes maintenance on the tractors, salaries for hired workers, materials used for production, and even property taxes. So the $200,000/year that is left over after all those deductions really is mostly discretionary income (except for what a family needs to live - i.e. food, clothing, healthcare, housing, education.) Being a farmer or a small business person does not automatically raise these expenses above what an ordinary worker would need.

Not correct.

A person who works for an employer and makes $200,000/year has his taxes deducted from that, perhaps a retirement savings plan, but that's it. The rest of it is discretionary income.

A farmer might "net" $200,000/year, but out of that he has to pay for his land, not one penny of which is deductible. A small business owner might deduct machinery, but if he buys land for expansion, none of it is deductible. If he builds an addition to his factory, he does get a deduction, but it's spread over 29 year...not a whole lot of help with that.

Farm land is unbelievably expensive. If I wanted to buy rich loess "corn land" in this state, it would cost me no less than $3,000/acre, probably more like $4,000. River bottom land would be even higher. A 500 acre farm anymore is a small farm on which one could hardly make a good living. The farmer who buys it in land like that will pay $1.5 to $2 million for that land and won't get a dime of deductions for that. If he borrows the money (most of which he will), he has to make loan repayments. Yes, the interest is deductible, but not the principal repayments. On a $1 million farm loan, his principal payments are going to be about $66,000/year at the very least. To get that $66,000, he will have to pay $20,000 in income taxes, or earn $86,000 if his marginal rate is 30%.

That $200,000 is not at all "discretionary". The difference between the farmer and the wage-earner is that the wage-earner's COMPANY is paying for its assets, not the individual. He doesn't have to "buy his job" the way a farmer or small business owner does.

Around here, land is less expensive because it's cattle land. But even so, you will have a hard time finding it for less than $2,000/acre.

People whine about "factory farming", but increasing taxes on people like that make it even more difficult for individuals to own land, encouraging "factory farming" by corporations.

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Not correct.

A person who works for an employer and makes $200,000/year has his taxes deducted from that, perhaps a retirement savings plan, but that's it. The rest of it is discretionary income.

A farmer might "net" $200,000/year, but out of that he has to pay for his land, not one penny of which is deductible. A small business owner might deduct machinery, but if he buys land for expansion, none of it is deductible. If he builds an addition to his factory, he does get a deduction, but it's spread over 29 year...not a whole lot of help with that.

Farm land is unbelievably expensive. If I wanted to buy rich loess "corn land" in this state, it would cost me no less than $3,000/acre, probably more like $4,000. River bottom land would be even higher. A 500 acre farm anymore is a small farm on which one could hardly make a good living. The farmer who buys it in land like that will pay $1.5 to $2 million for that land and won't get a dime of deductions for that. If he borrows the money (most of which he will), he has to make loan repayments. Yes, the interest is deductible, but not the principal repayments. On a $1 million farm loan, his principal payments are going to be about $66,000/year at the very least. To get that $66,000, he will have to pay $20,000 in income taxes, or earn $86,000 if his marginal rate is 30%.

That $200,000 is not at all "discretionary". The difference between the farmer and the wage-earner is that the wage-earner's COMPANY is paying for its assets, not the individual. He doesn't have to "buy his job" the way a farmer or small business owner does..

All the expenses you describe have to do with growth and expansion. That is a discretionary choice. He did not have to expand to stay in business. If he can then good for him! But I fail to see why I should feel especially sorry for a farmer who has 400 acres and is making a profit, after expenses, of $200,000, but he really wishes he had 800 acres. I would still call such a person "rich" - at least compared to someone who has a quarter of an acre and earns $50,000/year.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

How on earth could the government arrest, prosecute and imprison all 50 million of us?

The Catholic Church has approved of non-violent civil disobedience at times, for example during the Solidarity movement actions in Communist Poland, and during some Civil Rights actions in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Catholic priests and nuns were arrested for trespassing and disobeying police orders. In ancient Roman times, early Christians refused to obey certain Roman laws and were tortured and killed by the government.

Wouldn't such a mass action wake up America, and shake things up. Are we going to just wait 500 years for abortion to eventually be made illegal? Considering the gravity of what abortion is, and how many are occuring every year, shouldn't we be doing something (nonviolent) that is likely to change the status quo?

As many people have already pointed out, there are not 50 million committed pro-lifers in this nation. And many Catholics are not opposed to abortion, many Catholics have either had an abortion or been complicit.

Just witness the silence in most churches about abortion...

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

All the expenses you describe have to do with growth and expansion. That is a discretionary choice. He did not have to expand to stay in business. If he can then good for him! But I fail to see why I should feel especially sorry for a farmer who has 400 acres and is making a profit, after expenses, of $200,000, but he really wishes he had 800 acres. I would still call such a person "rich" - at least compared to someone who has a quarter of an acre and earns $50,000/year.

Expand? How about buying a farm in the first place?

A farmer with 400 acres will never make $200,000 net, unless its 400 acres of ginseng or marijuana. A farmer with 800 acres is not "rich" in terms of true discretionary income. I think you would find a lot of farmers with 400 acres who don't live one bit better in terms of personal discretionary spending than a person with $50,000 income. And, of course, the person with the discretionary income from a job probably has a retirement plan and employer health insurance benefits, which the farmer doesn't. A wage-earner making $200,000 is incomparably better off in terms of discretionary income than is a farmer with the same taxable income.

But it's true, a farmer around here who, at age 70 or so actually gets his farm paid off has a nice nest egg in the form of that farm, if it's a big enough farm. Of course, if his children want to farm, he can't cash it out. If he does cash it out, then the money he gets has to take care of him and his spouse for the rest of their lives.

Regardless, though, if this government is so rapacious that it won't allow farmers enough net income to pay for their land, resulting in fewer farmers and less (and more expensive) food, then that's a choice some might make for this country. But I would like to see some people who are so cavalier about taking their assets away from them try to make it themselves by farming and actually produce anything.

Same with small business people. It's nothing for one of them to owe a million dollars. Principal repayment all comes out of after-tax income. Maybe they all need to go under as well. That, of course, is what they're presently afraid of, which is why they won't hire, won't borrow, won't invest nowadays. Problem is, of course, that they hire most people.

But I guess the government can support the people who would otherwise work for them. Maybe that's the plan, right?

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Expand? How about buying a farm in the first place?

A farmer with 400 acres will never make $200,000 net, unless its 400 acres of ginseng or marijuana. A farmer with 800 acres is not "rich" in terms of true discretionary income. I think you would find a lot of farmers with 400 acres who don't live one bit better in terms of personal discretionary spending than a person with $50,000 income. And, of course, the person with the discretionary income from a job probably has a retirement plan and employer health insurance benefits, which the farmer doesn't. A wage-earner making $200,000 is incomparably better off in terms of discretionary income than is a farmer with the same taxable income.

Regardless, though, if this government is so rapacious that it won't allow farmers enough net income to pay for their land, resulting in fewer farmers and less (and more expensive) food, then that's a choice some might make for this country. But I would like to see some people who are so cavalier about taking their assets away from them try to make it themselves by farming and actually produce anything.

Same with small business people. It's nothing for one of them to owe a million dollars. Principal repayment all comes out of after-tax income. Maybe they all need to go under as well. That, of course, is what they're presently afraid of, which is why they won't hire, won't borrow, won't invest nowadays. Problem is, of course, that they hire most people.

I'm still not getting your point. You initially objected to classifying people with an AGI of $200,000 as rich on the grounds that their money is not discretionary. What you have presented is a set of difficulties faced by someone wanting to start up a farm. But that does not make their profit non-discretionary. They are choosing to start up a farm. No one has the inalienable right to start up a farm. They have the right to try. Of course if we make it too difficult then no one will do it and we will have wasted farmland and higher food prices or food shortages, and I agree that is not good. I suppose that is why we have farm subsidies. But I would not put the need to repay a huge capital investment loan on the same level as the need to buy essentials for today. The difficulty of doing something should be correlated with the potential payoff. Someone paying for day-to-day essentials only gets to live another day. Someone successfully buying and developing a profitable farm ends up with a lot more than he started with - in addition to getting to live another day. That big payoff should be associated with some added degree of difficulty in getting it. Sure, it would be nice if we could make life easy for everyone. But we don't have the resources to do that. So everyone has to bear their share of the difficulty. If you want to lessen the burden on farmers and small business, then you have to identify who will bear that share of the burden that you are lifting from the farmers.

[hazmat]

they would certainly try. as it is they look for any excuse to arrest people. the private prison lobby has been very successful in getting more americans in jail so they can profit.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

I'm still not getting your point. You initially objected to classifying people with an AGI of $200,000 as rich on the grounds that their money is not discretionary. What you have presented is a set of difficulties faced by someone wanting to start up a farm. But that does not make their profit non-discretionary. They are choosing to start up a farm. No one has the inalienable right to start up a farm. They have the right to try. Of course if we make it too difficult then no one will do it and we will have wasted farmland and higher food prices or food shortages, and I agree that is not good. I suppose that is why we have farm subsidies. But I would not put the need to repay a huge capital investment loan on the same level as the need to buy essentials for today. The difficulty of doing something should be correlated with the potential payoff. Someone paying for day-to-day essentials only gets to live another day. Someone successfully buying and developing a profitable farm ends up with a lot more than he started with - in addition to getting to live another day. That big payoff should be associated with some added degree of difficulty in getting it. Sure, it would be nice if we could make life easy for everyone. But we don't have the resources to do that. So everyone has to bear their share of the difficulty. If you want to lessen the burden on farmers and small business, then you have to identify who will bear that share of the burden that you are lifting from the farmers.

I relaize that to some, another's acquisition of assets, even if hard-won and over a lifetime, is somehow undeserved even if the public benefits by his doing so. I also realize there are those to whom "income" is "income", no matter whether it's invested productively or squandered on luxuries. In both cases, it apparently seems a source of revenue, with which to do whatever politicians want to do with it, so it's profitable to them to incite uncomprehending envy.

Never mind that a farmer might make $300,000 this year and nothing at all the next year. (How much do you think farmers and ranchers in the southern plains made in 2011?) Never mind that a small businessman might do the same. The government wants people to think of that income as a resource to be tapped, never mind that in tapping it, the enterprise is hampered or destroyed, with negative results for the public generally. Unfortunately, in the case of small business people, they are the ones who create most jobs, and the precise reason why they have not for these three years is that they have hanging over them the promise of increased taxes and regulation.

And, of course, the assumption that somehow destroying the productive infrastructure by looting it will pay someone else's "essentials" is without foundation and, in my view, without merit. If you knew anybody who really and truly is intractably poor, not just whiney, you would realize that this government has not benefitted them in the least way notwithstanding the enormous debt it has incurred in order to benefit its own political donors.

History is replete with examples of rulers who "looted the infrastructure" for short-term gain. It never turns out well for anyone other than the ruling clique, and not forever even for them. So it has been in the period of total Democrat power.

It might be enlightening to sometime read the Social Encyclicals. The individual and family acquisition of productive and inheritable assets is something the Popes have supported unequivocally since Pope Leo XIII. Over-reliance on big business and big government for wages and benefits has been condemned as a social evil. And yet, there are many in this country who would readily make it difficult or impossible for people to acquire their own means of support.

And if you think food is expensive now, wait until late 2012. It's a common mistake to believe that somehow all food is subsidized by the government. It might come to that, as private producers are crushed by a government that sees them as kulaks. But the reality is that other than grains cotton and tobacco (the latter of which somehow this administration continues to subsidize) not very much is actually subsidized. It might be mentioned that recently, market prices have outstripped subsidy guarantees in many cases anyway. A good part of that is due to the increasing worldwide demand for quality food. But, okay, better to make food even more expensive in this country so it can afford to loan billions to Brazil to benefit George Soros and throw money at bogus green energy projects operated by political donors.

Finally, you asked who should bear the burden that I propose not to impose on farmers and small business people. How about imposing it on no one? How about not burdening the public with new spending programs at all?

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

I relaize that to some, another's acquisition of assets, even if hard-won and over a lifetime, is somehow undeserved even if the public benefits by his doing so.

I didn't say anyone's income is undeserved. By default everyone deserves their income. But we levy taxes nevertheless. When income is taxed it is not a "punishment" nor is it a recognition that somehow those people don't "deserve" their income. It is just a recognition that the public debt needs to be paid by the public.

I also realize there are those to whom "income" is "income", no matter whether it's invested productively or squandered on luxuries.

On the contrary the tax law does take into account how income is spent. That is why there are "luxury taxes" and there are some breaks on productive investment. Of course one could argue about the degree to which this is taken into account. Maybe we should give productive investment more of a break. I agree with you there. But that does not undermine the basic idea that in general, it might be just to tax those making $200,000 or more a little higher.

Never mind that a farmer might make $300,000 this year and nothing at all the next year.

That is also provided for. If a farmer has a loss after a year of big gains (and taxes), then he can file for a refund for the year in which he paid more taxes. I have done it in my business and it works quite well.

The government wants people to think of that income as a resource to be tapped, never mind that in tapping it, the enterprise is hampered or destroyed, with negative results for the public generally.

Ask the public then if they wish to donate to that enterprise to keep it in business, because that is essentially what happens if we shift the tax burden from the "wealthy" to the not-so-wealthy.

Unfortunately, in the case of small business people, they are the ones who create most jobs, and the precise reason why they have not for these three years is that they have hanging over them the promise of increased taxes and regulation.

I don't think so. The main and practically the only reason why businesses have not hired is that they do not see enough demand for their product. Businesses hire only when they need to. Regardless of the promise in increased taxes and regulation, if a business thinks they can sell more product and make more money by hiring more workers, they will do it. If not, they won't.

And, of course, the assumption that somehow destroying the productive infrastructure by looting it will pay someone else's "essentials" is without foundation and, in my view, without merit. If you knew anybody who really and truly is intractably poor, not just whiney, you would realize that this government has not benefitted them in the least way notwithstanding the enormous debt it has incurred in order to benefit its own political donors.

You are now addressing the spending side of the equation, not the taxing side. On that I have no argument with you. But if you think that you can influence spending by influencing taxes, that link was broken a long time ago when we learned we could borrow without limit, running up a bill our descendants will be stuck with.

It might be enlightening to sometime read the Social Encyclicals. The individual and family acquisition of productive and inheritable assets is something the Popes have supported unequivocally since Pope Leo XIII. Over-reliance on big business and big government for wages and benefits has been condemned as a social evil. And yet, there are many in this country who would readily make it difficult or impossible for people to acquire their own means of support.

If what you mean is "unnecessarily difficult" then I agree with you.

And if you think food is expensive now, wait until late 2012.

On the contrary, I think food is quite inexpensive, in historical perspective. It is just that we have gotten used to cheap food so that we now think of it as the norm.

Finally, you asked who should bear the burden that I propose not to impose on farmers and small business people. How about imposing it on no one? How about not burdening the public with new spending programs at all?

OK, let's stop spending. But we still have to pay off the debt that is already incurred.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

I didn't say anyone's income is undeserved. By default everyone deserves their income. But we levy taxes nevertheless. When income is taxed it is not a "punishment" nor is it a recognition that somehow those people don't "deserve" their income. It is just a recognition that the public debt needs to be paid by the public.

On the contrary the tax law does take into account how income is spent. That is why there are "luxury taxes" and there are some breaks on productive investment. Of course one could argue about the degree to which this is taken into account. Maybe we should give productive investment more of a break. I agree with you there. But that does not undermine the basic idea that in general, it might be just to tax those making $200,000 or more a little higher.

That is also provided for. If a farmer has a loss after a year of big gains (and taxes), then he can file for a refund for the year in which he paid more taxes. I have done it in my business and it works quite well.

Ask the public then if they wish to donate to that enterprise to keep it in business, because that is essentially what happens if we shift the tax burden from the "wealthy" to the not-so-wealthy.

I don't think so. The main and practically the only reason why businesses have not hired is that they do not see enough demand for their product. Businesses hire only when they need to. Regardless of the promise in increased taxes and regulation, if a business thinks they can sell more product and make more money by hiring more workers, they will do it. If not, they won't.

You are now addressing the spending side of the equation, not the taxing side. On that I have no argument with you. But if you think that you can influence spending by influencing taxes, that link was broken a long time ago when we learned we could borrow without limit, running up a bill our descendants will be stuck with.

If what you mean is "unnecessarily difficult" then I agree with you.

On the contrary, I think food is quite inexpensive, in historical perspective. It is just that we have gotten used to cheap food so that we now think of it as the norm.

OK, let's stop spending. But we still have to pay off the debt that is already incurred.

Apparently we're not in disagreement about arresting, even reversing government profligacy. If so, then there is no good reason to address tax increases; certainly not in the absence of knowing whether spending reduction might even be a means of addressing the debt itself, without taxing anyone additionally. Remember, the annual deficit was decreasing during every Bush year except 2008, and that was with two wars going. I'm not a Bush praiser, but I can see annual deficit reductions when I look at them. I do think it is, by now, universally acknowledged that Obama's proposed tax increase on $200,000+ earners won't even pay for Obamacare, let alone other overspending. When an injured person is bleeding, the objective ought to be to stop the bleeding before it becomes life-threatening, not to give him sufficient transfusions of blood from someone else, to keep him alive while failing to address the bleeding itself.

About food costs. Don't you think 15-20% increase in one year is quite a bit? That's what we've had for most food products. I don't know what you eat, but I think you are going to find out within this year that meat in particular will be considerably more difficult to afford than even now. Wait and see. Know why?

A farmer who earns little or nothing in a given year has nothing to offset the tax he would pay on his earnings in the previous year.

As to businessmen not hiring or spending. I realize this is anecdotal, but I know a lot of business people. I know a lot of bankers that try to get business people to borrow for expansion. All business people invest ahead of demand in the absence of something preventing them from doing it. They don't simply react to current demand. None of the business people (particularly manufacturers) I know are hiring or investing, exactly because they don't know what this government has in store for them, but perceive that it's nothing good.

Let's say you have an aluminum extrusion plant. There's plenty of demand for aluminum extrusions. But they use a lot of energy. Since Obama has promised to make utilities much more expensive and has acted on it, you cannot project the energy inputs on a rational basis. Nor can you reasonably project your transportation costs. You cannot project your cost of raw materials based simply on supply and demand because increased energy and transportation costs for those producers are being artificially manipulated as well, with promise of more to come. You can't project your tax burden. You cannot project your cost of employee healthcare. You cannot project your regulatory burdens and costs. All you know is that your costs are going to go up significantly because this administration is telling you they will make it happen. If you're a smelter, you don't know if you are going to be hit with a "cap and trade" requirement to buy "credits" from some Solyndra or other. Because of government overspending, you don't know whether your interest costs in five years will be 20%. So you just don't borrow. You pay down debt as fast as you can. Ask a community banker about that. All business borrowing right now is very short-term, to the extent businesses (or farmers) borrow at all. It's pretty easy for anybody to see that coming.

"Producing for current demand" is a formula for a depression, and the longer this government keeps people in that mode due to uncertainties and threats, the more like a depression this is going to look.

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

About food costs. Don't you think 15-20% increase in one year is quite a bit?

Yes, but that is only because it happened all in one year, and because it started out artificially low. As a percentage of GDP we are still spending a lot less on food than we did 150 years ago.

A farmer who earns little or nothing in a given year has nothing to offset the tax he would pay on his earnings in the previous year.

He doesn't have to. He just files form 1139 and gets his money back.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

Yes, but that is only because it happened all in one year, and because it started out artificially low. As a percentage of GDP we are still spending a lot less on food than we did 150 years ago.

He doesn't have to. He just files form 1139 and gets his money back.

Artifcially low? What would it have been otherwise, if it was not "artificially low"?

I'll agree we are spending a lot less on food, per capita, than we did 150 years ago. I have not seen any statistics on that, but I do a lot of research into old title information and i can tell from court cases and wills that food was a lot bigger item in peoples' budgets 150 years ago than is the case today. Also, it is plain that the prices farmers receive for commodities is MUCH lower than was the case 150 years ago, relative to everything else. Of course, 150 years ago, most people in the U.S. were subsistence farmers and raised most of their own food anyway.

It is my impression that form 1139 is the form one would use for a loss carryback. I was talking about when there is no loss, but little or no gain in a year following a year in which there was a significant gain. The farmer does have to keep making his principal repayments, whether he makes any money in a given year or not. Principal repayments do not count in calculating a "loss".

[BobCatholic]

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady

Because in our 2-party system

We don't have a two party system.

Marx's goal #15 has been consummated.

[BobCatholic]

Originally Posted by Geist

grinding a country to a halt because something bugs you is selfish.

Abortion is a civil rights issue. The government says that unborn children have no civil rights whatsoever.

When we did the same to black people years ago, Martin Luther King objected and so did a lot of people. The country "ground to a halt" in many areas.

Were they selfish because "something bugged them"

Or were they standing up for what is right?

It is selfish for a society to say that someone has zero rights whatsoever because of their age, or their disability, or who they are....

[hazmat]

i wouldnt call it a civil rights issue, as this suggests citizens are being treated unfairly when compared to how other citizens are treated--the unborn arent citizens. you could say youre part of a civil rights movement though; blacks didnt have civil/equal rights during their civil rights movement.