Finally! A Good Idea From the Right

[DeeZire]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_rangel_rule_153222.htm

Quoting from the article:

Chairman Rangel admitted on the floor of the House that he had for years failed to pay tax on rental income from his resort property in the Caribbean. He apologized for this "oversight" and agreed to pay his back taxes - but has paid no interest or penalties.

Secretary Geithner admitted in his Senate confirmation hearings he had for years failed to pay taxes on his income from the International Monetary Fund, even though the IMF sent him checks and instructions to pay those taxes. He also called this an "oversight," has paid no penalties and faces no charges.

(Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) is secretary of the House Republican Conference.) "We either need to hold Chairman Rangel and Secretary Geithner fully accountable under the law - or we need a national 'Hobby Rule' for taxpayers."

"Last week, I introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009 (HR 735). Under this bill, any US citizen who owes back taxes can pay them and automatically waive all interest and penalties by writing 'Rangel Rule' on their return."

"I believe this would restore equal treatment for working Americans - and serve as an economic stimulus by restoring millions in pending IRS penalties and interests to the free-market economy."

In the interest of restoring "equal treatment for working Americans" I'd also like to see Rep. John Carter refuse his free (socialist) federal healthcare, but what are the chances of that happening? The Rs are good at preaching their ideology, but not so good at actually carrying it out.

(I realize these two issues are unrelated, but I couldn't resist.)

 

[trysail]

"As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal."
-Charles Krauthammer

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

Republicans arent necessarily conservatives.

When Jeb Bush was governor of Florida his daughter was convicted of using forged prescriptions to obtain narcotics. The judge sent her to rehab. In rehab she was caught with crack cocaine, convicted, and sentenced to...rehab.

That's not conservatism, thats politics as usual, and special treatment for the elites.

I recently sold a horror story to a slasher film producer. He sent me a money order. The story was my property to dispose of as I please. The producer went to the story market, examined the wares, and bought the story he wanted at a price he was willing to pay. THAT is conservatism.

 

[off2bed]

Maybe Ted Kennedy should have gone to Cuba for his current medical issues. Naw, even Castro doesn't use his own socialist medicine...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Castro exports his socialist medicine for stuff Cuba needs. The average Cuban gets 2 aspirin and a sign in board.

 

[DesertPirate]

When Rangle, Dodd, and Frank are in jail I will believe something different is happening.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

None of them are going to jail.

People need to start thinking of the government as a crime syndicate. The two families get together at the Capitol and divide up the country between them.

One family controls the teachers, the other controls the trial lawyers. They split everything and everybody, two ways.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is a class problem not a party problem.

Acording to a report on the radio, the 400 richest individuals in the US paid an average of 14% of their income in federal taxes.

How much do you pay?

 

[rgraham666]

On the other hand, here is a bad idea.

Pete Sessions says that the Republicans have useful things to learn from the Taliban.

 

[trysail]

This is a class problem not a party problem.

Acording to a report on the radio, the 400 richest individuals in the US paid an average of 14% of their income in federal taxes.

How much do you pay?

Class problem? Huh? Wha?

Giving the benefit of doubt, if "the radio" [ source, please ] report was accurate— which I doubt, so what?

The governor and his party, which dominate my fair state, raised the sales tax last year by 20%. Everybody and anybody who, by the simple act of spending money, all had their taxes raised 20-friggin' percent. And they wonder why people are unwilling to spend?

If you were the national dictator and you took ALL the money of those 400, it still wouldn't make a dent. Do the math.

 

[R. Richard]

These are tax figures from the IRS. Bush got his 'tax cut for the rich' passed after his election in year 2000. The careful observer will note that in each year, 'the rich' paid more, category by category [excepting a .02% decline in the tax percentage paid by the top 25% from 2002 to 2003.] In each year, the poor paid less.

Please explain to me, how were the Bush tax rate cuts a 'tax cut for the rich?' TIA.


For Tax Year 2006

AGI %Total
Top 1% $388,806 39.89%
Top 5% $153,542 60.14%
Top 10% $108,904 70.79%
Top 25% $64,702 86.27%
Top 50% $31,987 97.01%
Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99%

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

For Tax Year 2005

Top 1% $364,657 39.38%
Top 5% $145,283 59.67%
Top 10% $103,912 70.30%
Top 25% $62,068 85.99%
Top 50% $30,881 96.93%
Bottom 50% <$30,881 3.07%

For Tax Year 2004

Top 1% $328,049 36.89%
Top 5% $137,056 57.13%
Top 10% $99,112 68.19%
Top 25% $60,041 84.86%
Top 50% $30,122 96.70%
Bottom 50% <$30,122 3.30%

For Tax Year 2003

Top 1% $295,495 34.27%
Top 5% $130,080 54.36%
Top 10% $94,891 65.84%
Top 25% $57,343 83.88%
Top 50% $29,019 96.54%
Bottom 50% <$29,019 3.46%

For Tax Year 2002

Top 1% $285,424 33.71%
Top 5% $126,525 53.80%
Top 10% $92,663 65.73%
Top 25% $56,401 83.90%
Top 50% $28,654 96.50%
Bottom 50% <$28,654 3.50%

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What bugs the shit out of me is people paid more than their fair market value. Government and special interests sponsored by the government are the only entities able to pull this off.

It costs about 30 MILLION DOLLARS to get elected US SENATOR. The job pays, what? 150K?

Think of elections as lotteries. The lottery pays ONE MILLION DOLLARS or whatever. The political parties try to buy as many chances as they can, to ensure winning the payout.

 

[DeeZire]

Please explain to me, how were the Bush tax rate cuts a 'tax cut for the rich?'

Could they have been talking about the difference between the pre-2000 tax rate and the post-2000 tax rate?

 

[Huckleman2000]

These are tax figures from the IRS. Bush got his 'tax cut for the rich' passed after his election in year 2000. The careful observer will note that in each year, 'the rich' paid more, category by category [excepting a .02% decline in the tax percentage paid by the top 25% from 2002 to 2003.] In each year, the poor paid less.

Please explain to me, how were the Bush tax rate cuts a 'tax cut for the rich?' TIA.

You're misusing the numbers, and therefore misinterpreting them. Or vice-versa.

First off, these numbers refer only to Federal Income Tax, and don't take into account Social Security (FICA) and Medicare/Medicaid taxes. In both those cases, income over about $90K or so isn't taxed at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Second, look what happened in the income bands: The lowest 50% income cutoff went up $3,333, or 11.6%; for the top 1%, the cutoff went up $103,382, or 36.2%. That means that high-income earners took home a substantially larger chunk of the money - so, yes, their share of the tax burden expands as well. Still, on an individual basis, their tax rates went down - they paid more tax dollars because their incomes went up so much.

 

[R. Richard]

First off, these numbers refer only to Federal Income Tax, and don't take into account Social Security (FICA) and Medicare/Medicaid taxes. In both those cases, income over about $90K or so isn't taxed at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The Bush tax rate cuts only addressed the federal income tax.

Second, look what happened in the income bands: The lowest 50% income cutoff went up $3,333, or 11.6%; for the top 1%, the cutoff went up $103,382, or 36.2%. That means that high-income earners took home a substantially larger chunk of the money - so, yes, their share of the tax burden expands as well. Still, on an individual basis, their tax rates went down - they paid more tax dollars because their incomes went up so much.

That's typically what happens. When tax rates go down, high earners work harder, make more money, expand the economy and pay more tax dollars. That's why cutting tax rates makes sense. At the low end, the people pay so little tax that a tax rate cut has no real impact.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Bush tax rate cuts only addressed the federal income tax.


That's typically what happens. When tax rates go down, high earners work harder, make more money, expand the economy and pay more tax dollars. That's why cutting tax rates makes sense. At the low end, the people pay so little tax that a tax rate cut has no real impact.

"work harder," "expand the economy," "pay more tax dollars;" I do not think these words mean what you seem to think they mean.



"make more money" I'll give you that one.

 

[rgraham666]

Um. So what's the problem with the last couple of years, Richard?

According to you the economy should be booming.

 

[trysail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973–1974_stock_market_crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1958
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panic_of_1907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1890
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1866
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1847
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panic_of_1819

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

 

[Stella_Omega]

All of that aside, I do like the idea of a "Rangel Rule" clause.

 

[DesertPirate]

I wonder how many Congresscritters have paid all of their taxes


The argument that the top doesn't pay all they should is in a way true
The idiotic tax code has become a jobs program for accountants and lawyers.
They do nothing but work on loopholes.

A flat tax with every person and business paying 15%, no deductions of any kind, no exceptions, no excuses, would generate more cash than any of the spendthrifts in DC ever imagined.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

This is a class problem not a party problem.

Acording to a report on the radio, the 400 richest individuals in the US paid an average of 14% of their income in federal taxes.

How much do you pay?

I don't know about people here but for a husband and wife who have two children and don't itemize their deductions and make $100,000 in income, they pay $11,444 in income tax. This is a personal exemption of $10,900 and four exemptions of $3,500 each. They are fairly well off but nowhere near the top 400.

If their income was $50,000, their income tax would be $2,951.

If their income was $24,900 or less they would pay no income tax.

Rich means having a large net asset total, not a lot of income. If a very rich person has no income, that person pays no income tax.

 

[R. Richard]

Um. So what's the problem with the last couple of years, Richard?

According to you the economy should be booming.

At the heart of the problem is something called the 'Community Reinvestment Act.' The idiots who passed the Community Reinvestment Act basically forced banks to begin lending to people who didn't meet normal bank criteria for loans. The result was a lot of people who couldn't make the payments owned homes until the homes were foreclosed from under them. Worse, the extra demand caused massive overbuilding and the current collapse in home values. While the Community Reinvestment Act was a US creation, the Europeans followed right along and wound up in the same mess. Anyone who allows politicians to basically determine the criteria for bank loans shouldn't be allowed out of the house/homeless shelter with money in theior pocket/purse.

Then, the SEC allowed people like Madoff to run fraud schemes. It now appears that Madoff NEVER traded securities. Since he had no trading slips, a half-blind SEC auditor would have caught it. Thus, the SEC people who 'examined' Madoff's operation were totally blind.

In Europe, they had a scheme that invested in collectable postage stamps. By the time the scheme collapsed, the firm was claiming more investable postage stamps than exist in the world. Somehow, the authorities never noticed this.

When you have idiot politicians tring to run bank operations and totally incompetent 'investment cops' watching things, you wind up with a disaster.

 

[DeeZire]

At the heart of the problem is something called the 'Community Reinvestment Act.' The idiots who passed the Community Reinvestment Act basically forced banks to begin lending to people who didn't meet normal bank criteria for loans....

I distinctly recall seeing that claim debunked, in that 80 percent of foreclosures were on mortgages that were not in compliance with guidelines. In other words, the mortgage brokers broke the rules in order to make a quick buck. Memphis and several other cities are filing lawsuits against the banks for these deceptive loan practices, which included shifting borrowers who qualified for prime mortgages into the subprime category so the broker could make more money on the deal.

It's a clear case of the free market taking advantage of the Community Reinvestment Act to line their own pockets at the expense of society at large. But that seems to be the way the free market works, doesn't it?

You can try to shift the blame to congress, but it was the free market that screwed the pooch. All congress did was loosen the leash.

 

[R. Richard]

I distinctly recall seeing that claim debunked, in that 80 percent of foreclosures were on mortgages that were not in compliance with guidelines. In other words, the mortgage brokers broke the rules in order to make a quick buck. Memphis and several other cities are filing lawsuits against the banks for these deceptive loan practices, which included shifting borrowers who qualified for prime mortgages into the subprime category so the broker could make more money on the deal.

It's a clear case of the free market taking advantage of the Community Reinvestment Act to line their own pockets at the expense of society at large. But that seems to be the way the free market works, doesn't it?

You can try to shift the blame to congress, but it was the free market that screwed the pooch. All congress did was loosen the leash.

Yes, the banks and martgage brokers ran wild. However, the politicians created an environment in which the banks were almost forced to allow imprudent lending. If a bank didn't lend enough to low income people, the weight of the law would descend on it. Once the standards were lowered, the system ran out of control.

Did the banks and mortgage brokers do insane things to line their own pockets? Yes, they did, however, the environment that allowed the excesses was a political one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, the banks and martgage brokers ran wild. However, the politicians created an environment in which the banks were almost forced to allow imprudent lending. If a bank didn't lend enough to low income people, the weight of the law would descend on it. Once the standards were lowered, the system ran out of control.

Did the banks and mortgage brokers do insane things to line their own pockets? Yes, they did, however, the environment that allowed the excesses was a political one.

Well that plus an economics chief who was a Randian;

"it never occurred to me that responsible bankers would take the short term gain!"