Comments on: Why Obama should pay more in taxes

By: center_right

center_right — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:13:33 +0000

optimatorz & br_add: Your payroll tax argument is a complete canard. You know as well as I do that medicare and SS payroll taxes at best slightly defray the cost of future services consumed by that 45%-49% who do not pay federal income taxes. Of course, now you’ll make the incorrect argument that some small fraction of those don’t live long enough to recoup their contributions to SS and medicare, but on an actuarial basis that cohort not only makes their money back while freeloading on other government services, but they even make a profit on these payroll tax contributions. Excise taxes, you say? Seriously? So those in higher tax brackets are hit less by these because they *gasp* save money. Perish the thought. Surely it’s much better to encourage boundless consumption. What could possibly go wrong with subprime lending after all?

To those who want conservatives to relinquish their future SS and medicare payments, I say OK. But, you have to agree to return all of my payments to date with a rate of return equal to the S&P500 over that same period. I will gladly save for my own retirement expenses as long as you stop taking my money and spending it for me.

Finally, the fact that Obama chose to take the deduction for his charitable giving speaks volumes about his insincerity. If all of the federal budget is true and noble, then he should happily give up that deduction. It’s not a case of being a “chump.” The federal government is simply a metacharity. Instead, he clearly believes that he can spend that money better than the federal government. And if that’s true for him, then why not others?

By: mheld45

mheld45 — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:44:42 +0000

The case of Mr Obama and the 35% vs 26% tax rate proves that no one really knows what the real rate of taxation is. Any talk of raising taxes is premature until the tax code itself is overhauled. Best possible solution is a flat tax with one deductible and a single rate for everyone. Tax code: (Income-deductible)*tax rate=tax owed. That’s it! It’s very progressive, for you progressive types (the real rate doesn’t approach the nominal rate until about $250K in income). The rich can’t pay a CPA to dodge the tax man. We can all use the hours spent preparing taxes for better purposes.

By: lsjogren

lsjogren — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:57:56 +0000

I would say the author’s suggestion falls under the category of “unilateral disarmament”.

It is analogous to the claim that a politician who believes in term limits should, in the absence of legally-mandated term limits, voluntarily limit his or her own terms in office.

Those who volunteer to abide by rules that they feel are in the public interest to be mandatory are simply providing an advantage to those who do not share their views on what is in the public interest.

What sense does it make to take an action which serves to benefit those you believe are wrong?

Another way to put it is: For Obama to voluntarily pay more taxes than he owes makes him a first class chump.

By: Realist99

Realist99 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:57:13 +0000

br_add: But don’t payroll taxes ostensibly go into the Al Gore “lockbox” for Social Security and Medicare? Sales taxes go to local/state coffers, not federal ones. Same for taxes on real estate and, in some states, on personal property like cars. Federal income taxes are what fund many of the remaining services like federal student loan programs, Pell grants, extended unemployment insurance, etc. Those are some of many possible examples of the federal services about which I was speaking.

seattlesh: You may benefit from some “loopholes” yourself. How about the mortgage interest deduction? That one costs many billions of foregone federal revenue and benefits by far greater numbers of middle-income taxpayers than upper-income ones.

IDONTGETIT: Look at the Form 1040 instructions. If you make less than a certain amount (a number that depends on whether or not you’re married and how many children you have) then you owe no federal income taxes at all. That’s just a fact anyone can verify for themselves, and it’s not “lies damn lies and statistics.”

By: urban16

urban16 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:22:03 +0000

This article would have been a lot more merit had the author also propose that all GOP members of congress voluntarily give up their Medicare and Social Security benefits. I mean, if they really believe the country can’t afford them and doesn’t need them, why are they still collecting them! I guess they’re hypocrites right mister Easterbrook? And while they are at it, they really should be contributing extra amounts from their paychecks to the Pentagon

By: lacich

lacich — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:14:44 +0000

This is a fine suggestion, but it is incomplete. If liberals in favor of tax increases can be asked to forego tax deductions that they are legally entitled to take, then conservatives in favor of spending cuts should be asked to give up federal benefits that they are legally entitled to receive.

By: br_add

br_add — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:08:40 +0000

Even though 45% of people don’t pay income taxes, they still pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and a myriad of other taxes – they are not getting anything for “free.”

By: jme0909

jme0909 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:45:36 +0000

So many larger issues to tackle involving taxes and the budget, and Easterbrook wastes time pointing out some insignificant example of hypocrisy. The point is a few wealthy people giving a little would almost zero effect on the budget outlook. It’s like pointing out that it’s better to eat a salad than a hamburger, doesn’t make you a hypocrite if you eat a hamburger.

By: optimatorz

optimatorz — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:32:01 +0000

45% pay nothing. the biggest piece of mythology on the right. That is a highly manipulated income tax number. These people pay payroll taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, excise taxes, etc. people with annual incomes under $10,000 pay some federal tax, most often payroll taxes on wages. and many low income earners end up paying more in payroll taxes than they get back from credits, like EIC.

so that argument is at best a red herring and more likely a deliberate attempt to mislead and manipulate information. not surprising from the wingnuts.

but beyond that, yet another truly terrible article from Gregg Easterbrook. truly awful.

By: ceptri

ceptri — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:35:29 +0000

Not a big fan of the “why don’t you just pay higher taxes yourself” argument. It seems like your just tying to do a gotcha on people who are willing to make a non-self serving argument (like, “you can’t talk about the military unless you’ve been in the army” or “you can’t talk about abortion unless you’re a woman”). Being for raising taxes on your income bracket is a valid position even if you don’t do it individually, it’s the difference between sacrifice and just being taken advantage of.