Why cut taxes?

[Goatnapper'96]

This would be a betrayal of the purpose of the fund when established. You are obligated to pay on the fund, and were promised it would be there when you retire, but then you argue because you are successful despite paying into the fund for a lifetime that you are no longer entitled to receive anything?

I don't believe that is fair or politically viable.

Also lifting the tax cap is counter-intuitive. It is already at $127,000. Imagine that you have a means test where people who pay unlimited into the system have a promise they can never receive anything from it? Doesn't that strike resident socialists or redistributionists as somewhat unfair?

I understand and agree, but nobody wants you to cry on their shoulder either.

[Topper]

I understand and agree, but nobody wants you to cry on their shoulder either.

Of course not, but it was advertised as an annuity. You don't lose an annuity simply because you have other assets.

[Goatnapper'96]

Of course not, but it was advertised as an annuity. You don't lose an annuity simply because you have other assets.

You "shouldn't" lose an annuity because you were responsible and successful. But you will because we are irresponsible and democratic enough that irresponsibility is not frowned upon. After all it was all that good marketing that addicted the middle class to the consumer culture that financed your wealth in the first place. They are the victim and you have the gall to complain about it!

[Jeff Lebowski]

1)I'd lower corporate tax rate to 28%, or 20% if you have a defined-benefit retirement plan that meets criteria determined down the line (not by politicians)

Agreed on the first part. Our corporate rate needs to be more in line with international norms to stop companies like Apple from moving everything out of country. I think here is a case where we could genuinely come out ahead by a reduction. But I could be wrong. Not every company has the size and ability to evade taxes my moving stuff offshore like Apple.

2) Raise capital gains exceptions for sale of primary residence to $350,000 per person, $700,000 per couple, once every 3 years.

Disagree. Capital gains tax is reasonable where it is.

4) Raise SSI eligibility age to 72 for people born after 1970. 73 born after 1980, 75 born after 1990. 77 after 2000, 79 after 2010. 81 after 2020.

I love the idea of sticking it to millennials, but 81? Come on.

3)Eliminate cap on Social Security max annual tax. All earnings will be taxed.
5) Social Security should require a means test to begin drawing it. If you have assets over a certain amount, you don't need "Social Security Insurance." Just because I've paid into my home, fire, and auto insurance policies my whole life doesn't mean I'm suddenly entitled to checks all the time....Social Security is insurance. The law should be written so that people can't put all their assets in trusts to avoid this rule.

Could not disagree more here. This would violate the foundational premise of SS. FDR himself vowed that this would never happen. You pay money in, you have a fundamental right to take money out.

6) Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Only slightly more than half of all Americans own a home and interest rates are at near historic lows. Kill the cow before the rates go back up.

Agreed. I am sick of paying for those stupid McMansions.

7) Reauthorize deductions for EnergyStar windows, doors, appliances, insulation, etc on primary residences.

Why can't things like this stand on their own? If they aren't cost effective, why subsidize it?

8) Special 5% deduction in corporate tax rate, beneath the 20% possible one, in any year that a company with over 300 employees keeps a full janitorial staff on the payroll the entire year (no outsourcing allowed) and the executive officers' pay (including options and bonuses--gross compensation) does not exceed the lowest paid employee's annual compensation by more than 35x his/her hourly wage. Also, all employees must enjoy the same health insurance package in order to qualify for this tax rate.

I am going to assume you are trolling with this one.

9) Raise the federal excise tax on gasoline from $18.2 where it's been since 1993 to 32¢, where it should be when adjusted for inflation. A gallon of gas costs double what it did in 1993. The tax should go up, and we could use the tax revenue for infrastructure.

Agreed.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I find it funny that none of the talk about taxes is ever that we should ensure the government is using the money with some level of responsibility. I work very closely with a government agency and the idea of saving money or not spending every penny designated to them is worse than rape. If they get $10,000 for a project, they are going to spend $11,000 minimum every single time.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I am going to assume you are trolling with this one.

Since any company with 300 plus employees for sure has some making minimum wage, the CEO would cap out at $527,800. That would keep a good young executive around until he had one good offer. It would be like the business version of being a Sun Belt football team, as soon as your CEO/Coach had one good year they would leave for somewhere that offered more money and opportunities.

I also don't understand what having an in house janitorial staff matters. If the company is hiring someone else to do janitorial, aren't they supporting jobs either way?

[cowboy]

Also lifting the tax cap is counter-intuitive. It is already at $127,000. Imagine that you have a means test where people who pay unlimited into the system have a promise they can never receive anything from it? Doesn't that strike resident socialists or redistributionists as somewhat unfair?

This is why I oppose means testing for SS. If we raise the eligibility age and the tax cap, SS should survive without means testing. Most importantly is the incentives that the policy creates. I believe legislators' biggest shortfall is in considering and managing incentives. Without doing so, legislation ends up creating counterproductive, unintended consequences. Obviously, taxes need to raise revenue, but in reaching that goal, fairness and incentives cannot be ignored without doing more harm than good.

[Maximus]

So, thoughts on getting rid of student loan interest and medical expense deductions?

Personal exemptions are now gone.

I am fine with the business side of it, not pretending I understand it all but whatever.

[old_gregg]

So, thoughts on getting rid of student loan interest and medical expense deductions?

Personal exemptions are now gone.

I am fine with the business side of it, not pretending I understand it all but whatever.

caps/floors make them not worth a lot anyway

[BlueK]

caps/floors make them not worth a lot anyway

Right. For medical it had to basically be a catastrophically high level to allow someone to use the deduction. Student loan interest I thought did apply to most people in that situation.

[Crockett]

I am in favor of some types of SSI means test as a pragmatic necessity but it grates on me to some extent as it encourages irresponsibility wrt to saving and planning for one's future, IMO. You call it insurance, I call it a tax designed to redistribute wealth especially if you uncap its assessment levels. But nobody is likely to want me to cry on their shoulder about it.

Really like #10 if it went to funding the only socialistic fund that I like - Federal Universal Service Fund!

Lucky you! Looks like the hyperbole police let that one go.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lucky you! Looks like the hyperbole police let that one go.

I have lost hope for goatnapper.

[BlueK]

Lucky you! Looks like the hyperbole police let that one go.

aren't all tax law changes basically an attempt to distribute the wealth a different way?

[Jeff Lebowski]

aren't all tax law changes basically an attempt to distribute the wealth a different way?

For the sole purpose of buying votes!

[Crockett]

aren't all tax law changes basically an attempt to distribute the wealth a different way?

Sure, the current tax code with its incredible complexity and all sorts of credits, deductions, rules, etc. pretty much behaves that way. A very simple flat tax would not. Also, I don't consider tax changes that reduce what is taken from you as redistribution.