Catholic Online Forum

Everyone's will go down by about 2%. Because the Obama tax cuts expired.

That is the first time I have heard this expiration called the "Obama tax cuts" expiration? My understanding is that due to the faltering economy there was a payroll tax holiday that reduced social security payments and NOW the holiday is over.

All the other tax cuts were the Bush tax cuts and they were actual tax cuts NOT simply a holiday that deferred payments.

NOW, the Bush tax cuts have been expired for the 'rich'

and the Obama tax increases as a result of Obamacare have begun to kick in

-this in addition to an intentional expiring of the payroll tax holiday WILL decrease take home pay.

ALL this intentional PRESIDENT OBAMA expiration (tax increase) in a still faltering economy is part of President Obama's 'balanced'

approach to spending more money than he has to spend by claiming virtual savings ten years into the future (well beyond his limited term in office).

We are winning the future NOT! We are mortgaging the future of our country and our posterity.

I'd love to hear your ideas for what to cut. Even Republicans balk at cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense...and there's literally no other cuts that would bring us to fiscal responsibility. Though I'm in favor of cutting all three.

Jeff, "Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them."., really are you so jealous of success that you wish ill of those achieving success?

Those evil, dirty, no-good, high-achieving rich people are already paying around 40% of the total US tax

have you hired anyone lately?

I never hear the taxpayers yelling we need to eliminate all the exemptions and deductions in the tax code as a means to increase revenue, it's always "let's get the other guy, but not me".

We need a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions and no excuses before we can start serious talks about the need, if any, to raise more tax on Everyone.

I'm all for reducing medicare and Social Security, we can start by raising the eligibility age to 70; we can stop paying $4,000 for $1,000 motorized scooters and similar scams; we can stop covering anyone and anything not covered by the original plans as voted on and approved and we can force the government to return all the money it stole from those programs, with interest.

I would love to hear my ideas for what to cut as well

-as would be evidenced by the elected representatives that would do such IF ever a budget was allowed to be passed through the leftist controlled Senate.

Something better happen quick because people are growing sick and tired of being ruled over rather than served by an executive and his political party that seem by actions to care nothing about my ideas at all -all this while telling me they have a mandate and speak for me!

Sounds to me like an elected Senate and executive are using their Constitutional authority to represent what they think their constituents want them to do. If they didn't want this guy, they shouldn't have voted for him. It's simply inaccurate to say he's ruling over when he was duly, legally, and constitutionally elected.

As much as we oppose him, he is not "ruling over".

Taxing someone making $18,000 a year the same rate you tax someone making $180,000 a year is fundamentally unjust

"Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them."

Could you explain what you mean to me on that? Taking an arbitrary 10% of their incomes would be 1800 and 18,000 respectively, what ever is unfair about that? and before someone dwells on the 10% I chose that number just for discussion.

The higher one's income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, free market democracies should support progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

In response to the concern that progressive taxation creates an unfair psychological burden on the wealthy; if the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tends to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes

People with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in discretionary income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument), e.g., a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without its causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.

Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.

As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, the more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation).

You want to carry water for President Obama

However. do not expect me to join with you in the delusional exercise.

While not absolutely unjust in itself, a flat rate tax is comparatively unjust when compared with a progressive tax. The reasons usually given are as follows.

No, I don't. As my other comments make quite clear.

I stand for truth and accuracy.

Given that there's no accurate Circular E in play, yet, there's no accurate way to have this discussion.

I'd say Jeff is pretty lucky in his health insurance coverage, certainly compared to us.

Circular E? Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what that is.

...someone should be taxed more because they can afford it?

Bob C,



I don't think that an accurate summary.

That is how I see the statement.

The government has a legitimate right to reasonable taxation.

Gotta get it from somewhere. Taking it from the poor takes away essentials, taking it from the rich takes luxuries. The latter option is far preferable.

Unfairly taxing the rich does give some relief to the poor (or so it seems) but the rich buy things like yachts, guess who are hired to build the yachts...members of the lower and middle class, if less yachts are sold, less will be built, thus more persons will be put out of work.

The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity.

The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.

The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.

The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.

Theft is theft no matter the reason. Inequality under the law is unjust no matter the reason.

Taxation is theft? Hm.

That's a position the Church disagrees with.

When taxation is used as a means to redistribute wealth it is by definition theft -though some call it fair taxation. Taking from one to give to another is theft -though some may call it charity.

Government control and central planning of the economy aimed at fair outcomes and resulting in preferential treatment for some is Socialism & Tyranny -though some may call it Democracy.

The Church is quite clear on all these things.

That is how I see the statement.

Indeed? Can you cite church teaching that indicates such?

Bob C,



It does not accurately summarise any of the seven reasons I gave you.