The two ways I mentioned. One is that other’s taxes will go up to compensate for the reduction in taxes these guys get, and two is the cut in services that will result from the cuts in taxes.
The current one.
Very true. My point here is that no one supports tax fraud. I think the point that it makes fraud easier to catch is a valid one. My only question is, that if this fraud is real and verifiable, it is also prosecutable, and therefore at least one other option exists.
- their taxes do not need to go up. Just cut spending.
- those services, if vital and enumerated, can be funded by savings from the cutting of non-vital , non-enumerated programs.
You find 540 whose taxable income make a real difference.
Who claimed the tax code is unfair to just billionaires? The claim is that 70,000 pages of code is unfair to most taxpayers, especially those who don’t have a special interest and require that we all participate in paying for it without enjoying it. Now that’s unfair.
Prosecuting costs money. I would not support another “full-employment” act for lawyers. Shakespeare was right. The root problem is not that we don’t have enough prosecutors but that the smaller governments, i.e., state, county, city, or local private organizations can do a better job of screening applicants in the first place. An ounce of prevention …
You originally asked how was it a sacrifice. I said it a sacrifice in terms of a cut in services. Now you are saying you think those sacrifices are proper and overdue. Of course I disagree, but proper or not, it is still a sacrifice. And it will be viewed as such by those many people you think have been benefitting unfairly.
That’s not a good reason to ignore an unneeded gift to them.
Those who support a tax break that benefits them more than anyone else.
The fewer “services” government provides us the better off we will be.
Isn’t that just Washington liberal attitude we must change, i.e., If we don’t take your money then we give you a gift.
See previous post. Only those who pay taxes can get a “tax break.”
Which services? If you recall, I clearly stated that cutting non-vital, non- enumerated programs would easily pay for vital, enumerated ones.
Actually, I didn’t say that. A sacrifice implies giving something up that one owns. The ones sacrificing are those who pay the income taxes, mostly paid by the top 10%.
You POV also assumes that care for those in need must and should come from government, a point we have disagreed on before.
Either way, people getting to keep what is theirs is not a sacrifice on anyone else’s part.
I don’t think you will get those who have been relying on those services to agree with that. But I can see how the billionaires would be better off if we cut government services.
They pay by far the most. Of course they will benefit. Someone who pays no taxes gets no benefit from tax cuts because you can’t cut 0%.
This is the danger of nearly 50% paying no taxes. Soon they will be able to dictate to the minority that pay taxes how much they must pay.
As far as I know that is still in place with the new bill.
I’ll just mention two: SNAP and CHIP. I know you probably think they should be cut because you don’t think they are enumerated powers. I disagree, but frankly I don’t care if they are enumerated or not. It does not matter to those that lose these benefits. Therefore it is a sacrifice.
(I know that CHIP and SNAP are not explicitly on the chopping block in the current proposal, but if we don’t cut programs like that to pay for the tax cut, out children will have to pay through the consequences of a massively increased debt.
I disagree. A bank robber might be said to sacrifice his loot in an effort to escape. Of course it is proper that he do so. And you apparently think it is proper that poor families similarly sacrifice the lunches they get at school and the health care they get through CHIP, because they were never entitled to them in the first place, right?
So why don’t you just come out and say it. The poor don’t pay enough in taxes. Go on. You know you want to say it.
Even more to your point: the tax credit schemes do allow those who pay 0% taxes to realize negative tax rates.
In order to prevent those who pay 0 or negative taxes from dictating to those who do pay why not make only tax payers eligible to vote? Such a change will cause the liberals to gag as many elected Democrats would lose their primary constituencies. The campaign slogan/bumper sticker, “Elect me and I’ll get you more federal freebies” would finally go to the dustbin where it belongs.
So, an interesting article proposing a way to a balanced budget without “austere” spending cuts.
But let’s set that aside and consider what would be necessary to balance the budget over the 10-year budget window. Earlier this year, I calculated that it would be possible to balance the budget and enact a $3 trillion tax cut so long as politicians would simply restrain federal spending so that it grew by 1.96 percent per year.
Based on the most recent numbers (and starting the spending restraint in 2019 rather than 2018), the budget can be balanced if federal spending grows by 2.67 percent annually. Since that’s much faster than what would be necessary to keep pace with inflation (projected to average about 2 percent per year), this wouldn’t require any “harsh” austerity.
Because that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying everyone else is paying too much tax. Two entirely different proposals.
The poor pay social security premiums, state and local sales taxes, and the like. They’re paying enough. The problem, as usual, is not taxes, but spending, spending outside the constitutional enumeration.