http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/u...z/-/index.html
interesting....
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/u...z/-/index.html
interesting....
We could use a little help.
Dude needs to STFU, disappear and go back to being an obscure eye doctor.
"What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.
Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can't everyone just be nicer?"
http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977
Guilty as charged. I'm all in favor of everyone being nicer. And staying with substance over ad hominem attacks."What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.
Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can't everyone just be nicer?"
http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977
Rand Paul to propose lower tax rates to create jobs in DetroitBeware of geeks bearing gifts.In July, Paul made headlines when he said a federal bailout of Detroit could only occur “over my dead body,” because the federal government did not have the money. No federal bailout of the city has been requested, and the Obama administration has rejected the idea.
Semi-OK idea, but this is one of the most vehement supporters of maintaining the tax incentives for US businesses moving operations overseas in favor of the reverse.
Brilliant!
Detroit's tax base is disappearing and what does he want to do? Cut taxes!
Typical Republican b.s.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't his idea to cut federal taxes to very low levels?
That would have no negative impact on Detroit's ability to collect taxes. If anything it would cause increased investment in the area, raise property values, and bring more taxpaying folks to the area.
I don't know if he's genuine in his desire to help Detroit. Sounds like a cheap ploy that he knows won't work so he can try to build political capital with Detroit.
Folks in Detroit say, "Hey he's trying to lower our taxes, YAY!".
Repbulicans say, "Lower taxes are good, this will never go anywhere anyway. There's little risk of the brown people getting our money."
The top 15% of wage earners pay 85% of all taxes while nearly half of adult americans pay zero taxes and get refunds above what was taken out of their earnings! OBM Statistics......
Last edited by faygoa1history; December-07-13 at 07:04 AM.
I believe you can. Its called the Earned Income Tax Credit. Its a 'Negative Income Tax'.
I've been intrigued by the idea of Negative Income Tax rates. It been asserted that it is a much better way of helping the working poor than a minimum wage. Minimum wages make less skilled workers cost as much as more skilled workers. What do you think that does for entry level jobs?
From the ever accurate wikipedia: "The earned income tax credit has been part of political debates in the United States regarding whether raising the minimum wage or increasing EITC is a better idea."
Your common sense is misplaced, these are taxes we are talking about. A HUGE number of people get $REFUNDS$ without paying any taxes. They are called refundable tax credits. Some of the federal ones that you might have heard of:
Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit [[EITC)
First Time Homebuyer Credit
American Opportunity Credit
Making Work Pay Credit
Adoption Tax Credit
These are huge drains on the budget. For 2010, the EITC was $55 billion in refunded credits alone. Nearly 20% of all Michigan taxpayers were EITC recipients that year.
Taxes are another HUGE source of welfare that most observers overlook.
Huge is in the eye of the beholder. The federal budget in 2010 was around $3.5 trillion, so $55 billion isn't exactly a huge chunk. Refundable tax credits are one of the main mechanisms for providing subsidies to the working poor, and while there are certainly other ways society could do that, they probably wouldn't be a lot cheaper. And, of course, while people receiving refundable credits may well not pay federal income tax, they certainly pay other taxes.Your common sense is misplaced, these are taxes we are talking about. A HUGE number of people get $REFUNDS$ without paying any taxes. They are called refundable tax credits. Some of the federal ones that you might have heard of:
Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit [[EITC)
First Time Homebuyer Credit
American Opportunity Credit
Making Work Pay Credit
Adoption Tax Credit
These are huge drains on the budget. For 2010, the EITC was $55 billion in refunded credits alone. Nearly 20% of all Michigan taxpayers were EITC recipients that year.
Taxes are another HUGE source of welfare that most observers overlook.
Your common sense is misplaced, these are taxes we are talking about. A HUGE number of people get $REFUNDS$ without paying any taxes. They are called refundable tax credits. Some of the federal ones that you might have heard of:
Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit [[EITC)
First Time Homebuyer Credit
American Opportunity Credit
Making Work Pay Credit
Adoption Tax Credit
These are huge drains on the budget. For 2010, the EITC was $55 billion in refunded credits alone. Nearly 20% of all Michigan taxpayers were EITC recipients that year.
Taxes are another HUGE source of welfare that most observers overlook.
did you go to tax school or take an economics class?
look at peoples tax form on april 15th and you will find that they INDEED pay taxes. they just reduced their tax burden by using deductions that the Government gives you. Try looking into the Corporate World where deductions create a net loss and NO TAXES are paid.
What is old and BS is people calling a fact a talking point and saying they are tired of hearing it. It does nothing to make the purported fact invalid. If you want to argue that the fact is wrong, that's one way to start- and maybe it is or maybe its correct with one or more additional qualifiers. If you want to argue that the assessment of taxes as purported is equitable because some of these people are poor as dirt [[prolly not that difficult of an argument) that's another way to rebut the 'talking point'. Merely saying you are tired of a fact being repeated, is very lame and does nothing to move the ball forward.
I'm not sure I agree with you--you can have a fact which is true but misleading, and continually bringing it up without context is, in fact, BS.What is old and BS is people calling a fact a talking point and saying they are tired of hearing it. It does nothing to make the purported fact invalid. If you want to argue that the fact is wrong, that's one way to start- and maybe it is or maybe its correct with one or more additional qualifiers. If you want to argue that the assessment of taxes as purported is equitable because some of these people are poor as dirt [[prolly not that difficult of an argument) that's another way to rebut the 'talking point'. Merely saying you are tired of a fact being repeated, is very lame and does nothing to move the ball forward.
I would say this "fact" is probably fairly close to being true, but lacking a bit of context. I couldn't find that exact percentage, but according to 2010 IRS data, the top 12.8% of Americans [[over $100,000 income) paid 70.5% of the taxes, which, if correct, would make it pretty much impossible that the top 15% could pay 85%, more likely a bit under 75%. Still, that is a lot. But since that same top 12.8% earned 59.4% of the income, it doesn't seem particularly high.
A Detroit-specific reduction in federal taxes would obviously be beneficial to the city; how beneficial would depend upon the details.
However, that isn't ever going to happen, because who outside the area would vote for it? Instead, the most you would get would be a set of areas around the country which met some criteria for economic distress which would get a tax break. Once you start expanding the areas covered, the revenue losses become large as companies go tax-shopping and you can't offset them so the size of the tax breaks falls and you get a nothingburger.
The main reason this won't happen is because we as a country need to reform our city governments, not encourage more inefficiency. Along with lots of bad things, this financial crisis is at last bringing reform.
Ask people who work in government [[outside of Detroit). I've heard stories about how over the last dozen years they're reorganized their workforces. Moved to 401k pensions. Downsized. Computerized records. Consolidated with other cities.
If we 'bail out' Detroit, then we will just get a chance to 'bail out' the 10% of cities that haven't reformed. Then next up... bail out States. I don't like the idea of Michigan sending cash to Illinois to fix their pension mess. Do you?
Since this proposal wouldn't give money to the city government, especially not in the short term, but merely encourage economic activity in the city, I don't really think it would provide much incentive to keep Detroit unreformed, nor do I think that is the reason it is not going to happen.The main reason this won't happen is because we as a country need to reform our city governments, not encourage more inefficiency. Along with lots of bad things, this financial crisis is at last bringing reform.
Ask people who work in government [[outside of Detroit). I've heard stories about how over the last dozen years they're reorganized their workforces. Moved to 401k pensions. Downsized. Computerized records. Consolidated with other cities.
If we 'bail out' Detroit, then we will just get a chance to 'bail out' the 10% of cities that haven't reformed. Then next up... bail out States. I don't like the idea of Michigan sending cash to Illinois to fix their pension mess. Do you?
As of now in the city one building is considered a enterprise zone,that concept works in cities on a smaller scale,but Detroit is large.
If you take an entire zip code and create a tax zone it helps everybody across the board,combine it with the grants already available and property tax breaks for x amount of time it makes a difference on a larger scale.
It is short term loss for a more stable long term gain with the trickle affect of a stable family living in and supporting the city with their purchasing power.
Nobody wants that $500 house that has $5000 a year in taxes,and it is stated here all of the time that certain areas are gone and nobody wants them so level them and plant trees.
Change the structure of the system,if nobody wants them,change it to make it feasible.
This is nothing new,it is tried and proven elsewhere,so it does work across the board and everybody benefits.
Packard gets a can of paint just as does the homeowner 5 blocks away,it kinda eliminates the rebuilt building in the middle of a surrounding slum [[harsh)aspect.
That elimination of the capital gains tax he proposes for the city will really help the working poor with their stock portfolios.
Seriously, he could have at least pretended he was trying to help the people he came here to start "outreach" with had he stuck to the federal income tax reduction only. That could possibly help employed residents - that is, if you don't subscribe to the whole "47% don't pay taxes" thing. The capital gains elimination is all about those mythic "job creators" we hear so much about from him and his brethren.
It could also be argued that this is in fact a federal bailout of Detroit, over his not-dead body. Unless he's eliminating federal spending in equal amounts to the revenue no longer collected from these income tax breaks, the rest of the country has to make up the difference somehow. Hence, Houston bails out Detroit.
I always laugh at these Republican ideas because they are always slanted to the elites. I mean capital gains tax elimination LOL. Like that is going to help anyone making under 1 mil a year in annual income. The only good thing about the Republicans is that they are honest that they hate blacks and Mexicans and want to help the rich.
|
Bookmarks