Conservatives, are you flexible?

[Brother James]

I'm wondering how flexible conservatives are regarding the whole tax system debate. For example, everybody resists any new taxes. But, would you approve of eleminating some deductions? For example, people can deduct the mortgage interest from their second homes on their tax returns currently. If that deduction was eliminated, it could yield over $80 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Is that something you'd support if it got some concessions from people on the left to reduce spending by some amount?

They've already reduced the ability to deduct medical costs for 2013 and beyond, by the way. Seems like the second home mortgage interest could go before taking away medical expense deductions. What about property taxes on that 2nd home? This would not be an increase in tax rates, it would merely level the playing field since most people don't have 2nd homes to deduct.

 

[Strat]

I'm wondering how flexible conservatives are regarding the whole tax system debate. For example, everybody resists any new taxes. But, would you approve of eleminating some deductions? For example, people can deduct the mortgage interest from their second homes on their tax returns currently. If that deduction was eliminated, it could yield over $80 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Is that something you'd support if it got some concessions from people on the left to reduce spending by some amount?

They've already reduced the ability to deduct medical costs for 2013 and beyond, by the way. Seems like the second home mortgage interest could go before taking away medical expense deductions. What about property taxes on that 2nd home? This would not be an increase in tax rates, it would merely level the playing field since most people don't have 2nd homes to deduct.

What is 80 billion in tax revenue in 10 years when we are spending trillions every year,there will be no flexability and we will be spent into oblivion and financial ruin

 

[Eltanin]

We need a tax system that doesn't penalize growth...

It doesn't matter how flexible the tax system is. What we have now is never going to be adequate in reducing our debt, it is a broken system. Even if the economy was hunky-dunky it wouldn't be enough.

If we want to see an improvement in the economy we need to revolutionize the tax system... We should not be taxing growth, we should be taxing the fruits of labor...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

I think this is the most Conservative method. It encourages people to grow, and it also encourages financial responsibility...

There is less IRS involvement and it would nearly eliminate IRS involvement on the individual household level... I know the site says it eliminates the need for the IRS, but it doesn't completely... There are still businesses that would need to be kept in check...

People would really know what they get paid
No double taxation on property
No double taxing money you rightfully earned
Everyone pays the same percentage across the board... The rich and the poor...

It would encourage the wealthy to keep their assets in this country because they aren't being penalized for having more...
It would encourage poorer people to work because their meager paychecks would mean more than food stamps...

Anyways... the way it is right now, Uncle Sam gets more of my check than I do by the time I pay income, property, and sales taxes... and we live pretty meager... I think the only real non-necessity we have is our computers and internet. LOL ... If the majority of the USA is in the same boat as we are (and at last check, it is) then unless there is a major overhaul of the tax code, we are just going to keep getting worse.

 

[Brother James]

The "fair tax" will never ever come to pass in either of our lifetimes. You can take that to the bank. But as long as conservatives cannot even bring themselves to eliminate the mortgage interest deductions on second homes, I see little hope for any real progress. There are countless other examples that, if you added them together, would represent substantial progress to reduce the deficit and then you could demand spending cuts equal to these closed loopholes. Why does the government subsidize second homes?

 

[soupy]

Why does the government subsidize second homes?

Because the ones who makes these tax laws all have second homes.

Also the depressed housing market needs all the help it can get.

 

[Eltanin]

I agree with you about eliminating deductions on secondary residences, but doing so would be a water drop in the ocean... There is so much more that needs to be done...

I think a bigger issue really is the amount of earmarked money that sits unused... Or the amount of money that the government shells out on common items for its facilities, or the facilities themselves... Seriously, if you pay more that $20 for a decent screwdriver, you are spending too much... Heck I am perfectly happy with my 6-in-1 screwdriver I got from Autozone, and I only paid 7 bucks for it. LOL

We also have an issue of spending ALLOT of money where it doesn't need to be spent... Our Congress people have a bad habit of pushing contracts for their friends and families, and then having the government pay more than anyone else would ever pay in their right mind for the products and services of those well connected people... It's like there is a big sign over Congress that says "Rip us off, PLEASE!" ...

A big problem is bail-outs as well... It was infuriating to see huge institutions make a bed of nails for themselves and then the Government turned around and made taxpayers lay in it... I wish Congress would have done to the banks what Iceland had done... Iceland has one of the most devastating collapses, but now have one of the most recovered economies (if not THE most recovered in comparison with its collapse) since the recession started, and that is because Iceland told the banks that floundered to lay in their own beds... Part of their government plan was working with banks to bring about a solution, not straight up bailing them out...

The only thing I see getting this debt to start going the other direction is a total change in Government policy and citizen's attitudes... But I don't really see either happening in my lifetime...at least not without an extreme outside influence...

Because the ones who makes these tax laws all have second homes.

Also the depressed housing market needs all the help it can get.

There are more empty houses right now than there are homeless families according to some study I recently read... It sounded pretty cynical, and I don't know if the study was completely legit, but after working in a real estate office at the beginning of the 'bubble burst", I don't find it completely unbelievable...

I also see how many houses around here are empty and compare that with how many families I see in our local shelters, and think that it is maybe even true...

... But to me, that makes me think that it isn't the housing market that needs help... It's people, and the economy... If the economy wasn't broken, those people could afford to be in those homes, deductions or no...

The housing market being in trouble is a secondary issue to our economy, but our government wants to keep putting band-aids on internal bleeding.... Sooner or later, the real issue is going to become unavoidable, but by that time, it will be too late...

 

[Brother James]

Actually, the problem is entitlements but it will be impossible to reform entitlements while letting people with multiple homes continue to deduct the mortgage interest on all of them. And the property taxes, etc. There has to be some give somewhere or entitlements won't be touched, and that will just make the crisis that is coming all the worse.

 

[Strat]

Since when does the entitlement mentality compromise on anything,it has a 70+ year history of wanting more more more...it is a beast that will never be satisfied,conceived in the hearts of the lazy and indolent and born at the ballot box...it will be destroyed when the country is destroyed and there is nothing to feel entitled to.

 

[Eltanin]

Who said anything about entitlement?

A crappy economy makes getting ahead impossible for so many people... Our tax structure hurts small business owners, and discourages those who want to start new businesses... It hurts people who have to choose between paying bills or paying Uncle Sam... Our government isn't working for the people, it doesn't care about people; It has turned into a monster that believe the people are supposed to work for it...

I agree that welfare and other programs have gotten out of hand... We have a system that was supposed to be temporary help for those who hit hard times, and it became a permanent way of life for so many... I don't think they are altogether necessary to eliminate, but I think that it needs to be totally revolutionized as well.

I don't believe there should be any system in place that rewards people who would rather not work... And I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for people who choose not to... The Government seems to be playing to these people continually, and forgetting about people who are struggling to keep the ability to live without these programs... The Government is outright punishing those who have gotten to a place where they are actually comfortable... That isn't right either... The government is supposed to serve all of us... Not just the poor... not just the rich... EVERYONE.

And if the government were to get back to what it was supposed to be, it would be doing all that it could to allow prosperity for anyone who is willing to work for it... Our tax system doesn't do this... The way it is now, we work towards a dream that is getting harder and harder to ever realize.

 

[HammerStone]

Eh, as a Conservative in politics - entitlement reform is possible, and even President Clinton was on board for it. While it did not fix everything, it was a step in the right direction, and it was achieved in a bipartisan consensus, essentially. I for one think that spending has to be cut alongside a revamp of the tax code.

I'm not a huge fan of the flat tax. Like Brother James said, it ain't gonna' happen in our lifetimes. (I would expect to see a VAT before a flat.)

I do like the idea of taxing consumption, because we'd probably all buy less junk, but I question the longterm impact on the economy, because while we'd cut back in a positive sense, we'd also spend less money in a greater economic sense. That's quite a sudden shock to the economy, and I'm not smart enough to understand the full effects. I'm not sure what it would do to mom and pop stores when Walmart is cheaper, etc. I also think the costs to enforce it would be enormous. Nobody is really going to work too hard to circumvent a local sales that (or state tax) that might be 2-8% (as it is in most places), but when you're talking 20% or more, there will be a black market. And on top of that, it still doesn't fix the investment issue. The tax is entirely regressive, meaning it will hurt people at the bottom the most. A lot of the very low income folks are already getting money back, and 20% will cost them when it comes to necessities.

But to answer your original query Brother James, I'd approve of removing almost all deductions. I'd like to see a single-page tax code of x percentage for each bracket without deductions. I'd favor maybe keeping the child credit and, of course, charitable giving. No others come to mind, but maybe I am missing them.

But yes, we need to be flexible.

Otherwise, I agree with the common ground we all seem to be having in this thread. It is broke, time to fix it!

 

[biggandyy]

Is that something you'd support if it got some concessions from people on the left to reduce spending by some amount?

Those promices have been made by the Left before (with Reagan, Bush the First) and they have never followed through with their assurances.

By definition, career politicians are liars and cheats and when they are not kissing babies they're stealing their lollipops.

So, no, until the Left comes through first with some spending decreases asked for by Conservatives (not RINOs), there is no room to budge. We are essentially bidding against ourselves with the Democrats.

 

[Brother James]

But to answer your original query Brother James, I'd approve of removing almost all deductions. I'd like to see a single-page tax code of x percentage for each bracket without deductions. I'd favor maybe keeping the child credit and, of course, charitable giving. No others come to mind, but maybe I am missing them.

Right now there is a deduction if you suffer a casualty loss, like in 2005 when my house was hit by multiple hurricanes. It seems compassionate to allow this deduction. Except that I'm the one who chose to live near an ocean in a hurricane state. Shouldn't I buy insurance for my potential losses? Having the tax system absorb some of that risk seems very misguided. I might have more compassion for large medical expenses. But I do think deductions have to be looked at, and also the use of the tax system to redistribute wealth through the refundable credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. That will be a hard one to eliminate because it gores too many oxen.

Those promices have been made by the Left before (with Reagan, Bush the First) and they have never followed through with their assurances.

I was thinking more in terms of doing it in one bill so it's all there on the table, not in exchange for promises. More in the way of bipartisan negotiations to get something done. No, I wouldn't trade anything for a promise. Reagan knew that when it came to the Russians - trust but verify.

 

[Strat]

What will it take for Americans to realize their country has run its course with a debt in figures they can't even comprehend,with a culture rotten to the core and ready for collapse and yet they chit chat like happy little country folk over the back fence about doing this and doing that...like something out of a 50's sitcom in a Norman Rockwell fantasy....its over,get used to it.

 

[Brother James]

If you don't enjoy my chit chat feel free to ignore it, by all means. I'm not sure where your need to silence the conversations of others comes from. I guess you feel free to hold your opinion, but don't allow for others to express theirs?

 

[Eltanin]

I totally missed the happy there...

I mean... The vibe I get is that there is allot of dissatisfaction with how things are, aka unhappiness... and I see people discussing solutions... Maybe not 100% agreement, but anytime there is more than one person involved in fixing something there is going to be debate as to what the best way is to go about the fixing...

Honestly, if you aren't offering solutions, what is the point in complaining?

 

[HammerStone]

Right now there is a deduction if you suffer a casualty loss, like in 2005 when my house was hit by multiple hurricanes. It seems compassionate to allow this deduction. Except that I'm the one who chose to live near an ocean in a hurricane state. Shouldn't I buy insurance for my potential losses? Having the tax system absorb some of that risk seems very misguided.

I want a beachfront home. It probably will never happen, but if I purchase property on the beachfront, then I purchase set property knowing that the risk of water or wind damage rachets up dramatically from a home 100 miles inland. I do not view it as the government's duty to back (bailout, arguably) the homeowner for a decision like this. However, the flood of a century that wipes out a neighborhood (to me) is different. I'm not opposed to a catastrophic credit, and was unaware that there was one. (I assumed FEMA, etc would handle payouts, etc.)

I might have more compassion for large medical expenses. But I do think deductions have to be looked at, and also the use of the tax system to redistribute wealth through the refundable credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. That will be a hard one to eliminate because it gores too many oxen.

I want as few as deductions as possible - I'd be perfectly open to a reasonable medical deduction, FWIW.

The problem is that deductions tend to have winners and losers. For example, a few years back, golf carts were elligible for tax credits because of the green craze. I knew of a weathly woman who bought one, used, claimed it, and made money on the transaction from a credit. She did not need or use the golf cart, but she profited from buying one and could afford it.

If we better rig the tax system to do its job simply, then the ideal is to eliminate deductions, lower the overall rate, and free up income. At the end of the day, there is a happy median land between government projecting against catastrophic events versus me or you being responsible enough to develop a contingency fund for less catastrophic events. In addition, there is private charity. I've seen a number of highly successful fundraisers handle major medical costs $xx,xxx to $xxx,xxx. Most will give where there is need (if they have it). Maybe there is a Christian org idea in there, too!

It's like the people who get huge (relative) tax returns. We like to think of it as a reward (I was guilty of this logic), but we just hand our money over to someone else, and then get it back. Had we shepherded it correctly, we could have made more money in the short and long run. Is it government's responsibility to influence our saving?

 

[Foreigner]

I believe that one of the reasons most Americans oppose a tax increase is that you don't keep lending money to a drunken sailor who says they will pay you back on payday. Especially when that sailor has already borrowed more than they can pay back over the next several years of paydays.

I think Americans, myself included, would be willing to see our taxes increased for a period of time if there was a way we would be guaranteed it would be used to pay down the debt. That obviously is not going to happen.

Even if a law was passed stating a certain percentage of all taxes right off the top went straight to pay down the debt, the refusal to address uncontrolled spending ensures the debt will continue to be increased from the other end.

Both parties in Congress have been way too cavalier with our money over the last few decades and the mess we are in shows that.
And rhetoric about "The rich not paying their fair share" doesn't address it.
The top 1% earn 16% of all income, but pay 38% of all income taxes. How exactly are they NOT paying their fair share.


Corporations, however are a different animal.
The U.S. currently has the highest tax rate of any industrialized nation in the world.
HOWEVER.....what good is having that tax rate if there are so many loopholes/deductions in the tax codes that companies like General Electric can make BILLIONS......but not pay one cent in federal taxes.

GE CEO Jeff Emmelt is the head of Obama's fiscal commission. Mr. Obama keeps talking about "paying your fair share." He should start right there.

Lower the overall corporate tax rate, but eliminate many of the deductions and you will start seeing revenue coming into the US coffers.

 

[Strat]

If you don't enjoy my chit chat feel free to ignore it, by all means. I'm not sure where your need to silence the conversations of others comes from. I guess you feel free to hold your opinion, but don't allow for others to express theirs?

Quite the contrary,i'm amused by it becuase none of you will ever do anything but talk....thats all America's upright citizens brigade has ever done going back some 100 years.

 

[aspen]

I believe that one of the reasons most Americans oppose a tax increase is that you don't keep lending money to a drunken sailor who says they will pay you back on payday. Especially when that sailor has already borrowed more than they can pay back over the next several years of paydays.

I think Americans, myself included, would be willing to see our taxes increased for a period of time if there was a way we would be guaranteed it would be used to pay down the debt. That obviously is not going to happen.

Even if a law was passed stating a certain percentage of all taxes right off the top went straight to pay down the debt, the refusal to address uncontrolled spending ensures the debt will continue to be increased from the other end.

Both parties in Congress have been way too cavalier with our money over the last few decades and the mess we are in shows that.
And rhetoric about "The rich not paying their fair share" doesn't address it.
The top 1% earn 16% of all income, but pay 38% of all income taxes. How exactly are they NOT paying their fair share.


Corporations, however are a different animal.
The U.S. currently has the highest tax rate of any industrialized nation in the world.
HOWEVER.....what good is having that tax rate if there are so many loopholes/deductions in the tax codes that companies like General Electric can make BILLIONS......but not pay one cent in federal taxes.

GE CEO Jeff Emmelt is the head of Obama's fiscal commission. Mr. Obama keeps talking about "paying your fair share." He should start right there.

Lower the overall corporate tax rate, but eliminate many of the deductions and you will start seeing revenue coming into the US coffers.

http://mediamatters....te-the-r/184586

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1590598-Republicans-The-True-quot-Handouts-quot-Party

So Foreigner, why are you not telling the whole story about who is receiving handouts from the government?

 

[Eltanin]

Quite the contrary,i'm amused by it becuase none of you will ever do anything but talk....thats all America's upright citizens brigade has ever done going back some 100 years.

It is comforting to know that someone I have never met knows me so well... Oh wait... You don't... I doubt you know anyone in this conversation, so I have to wonder why you feel such familiarity...

You are amused by the thought of inaction?To be honest, it is not an attitude I would ever be proud to catch myself in, let alone admit to, but more power to you. I am quite sure that you don't know what anyone here is doing when they are away from their keyboards, and so you can only assume, which doesn't amount for much...

Have you done anything to distinguish yourself as better than the Upright Citizen's Brigade?
Or do you think being bent over a barrel and taking it better position for Christians? Are you a proud member of the Bent-Over-and-Taking-It Citizen's Brigade?