The Mitt-Lefty Paradox of taxation

[bae]

I do my own taxes, it doesn't seem all that complicated. I don't even hire super-duper specialists, because they in the past have been not able to offer me any of these fabled shelters and loopholes, even though I had, well, a lot of money to throw at the problem.

[Gregg]

The real problem, which no one wants to face is, we like our lives. We like how our country is structured and runs. We like our good roads, schools, library systems. We want our food inspected, and our water to be clean and safe. And we want our homes, cities, and rural areas to be protected by police and fire. ...

It's true, most of us do like our lives.

And congress surely doesn't want to tell a favored industry/donor that their personal gravy train is stopping. ...

Yes, that would be hard, but not nearly as hard as telling the citizens of this country that THEIR gravy train is also coming to an end. Think $20 gas and $30 hamburger and $800 electric bills and...

Here's a start, and one I don't think you will hear from congress. Stop subsidizing the oil industry. Stop the corn subsidies. Stop honey and milk producers subsidies. Stop all those 'favored industries' subsidies. Of course our food prices will go up, but that is expected. For every action there is a reaction.

That's also true. For the record I'm a Libertarian who is generally in favor of phasing out our subsidized lifestyle (note: phasing out, not abruptly ending). But you have to keep in mind that it is our entire lifestyle, not just a bit here and a piece there, that is subsidized by our government. Big oil is the poster child so think about what happens if you end subsidies there. Obviously it will cost you more to fill your tank. It will also cost more to fill the tank of every truck, train, plane and ship that gets ANYTHING you buy to where you buy it. Those costs will be passed along meaning the cost of everything you don't grow in the back yard will go up. Another layer of increases will come through the manufacturing/production side. Any product that uses oil as a raw material or to power the production process will become more expensive. Nylon, medicine, make-up, food, plastics, paint, etc. All of it goes up. We can keep going, showing layer after layer of cost increase to every product we all use, but I'm sure you get the idea.

[peggy]

It's true, most of us do like our lives.




Yes, that would be hard, but not nearly as hard as telling the citizens of this country that THEIR gravy train is also coming to an end. Think $20 gas and $30 hamburger and $800 electric bills and...




That's also true. For the record I'm a Libertarian who is generally in favor of phasing out our subsidized lifestyle (note: phasing out, not abruptly ending). But you have to keep in mind that it is our entire lifestyle, not just a bit here and a piece there, that is subsidized by our government. Big oil is the poster child so think about what happens if you end subsidies there. Obviously it will cost you more to fill your tank. It will also cost more to fill the tank of every truck, train, plane and ship that gets ANYTHING you buy to where you buy it. Those costs will be passed along meaning the cost of everything you don't grow in the back yard will go up. Another layer of increases will come through the manufacturing/production side. Any product that uses oil as a raw material or to power the production process will become more expensive. Nylon, medicine, make-up, food, plastics, paint, etc. All of it goes up. We can keep going, showing layer after layer of cost increase to every product we all use, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Oh you're absolutely right. Things will go up, but not necessarily because the poor companies can hardly get by without the tax payers subsidies. Again taking the big oil companies. Their profits are obscene, and they could very well take a bit of a cut. But, you are right in that they won't because greed rules! It's not the cost of production that will raise our prices but pure, nasty greed!

But, everything else will go up too, but what is the answer? I mean, everyone keeps saying we need to trim the budget, and can't possibly ask anyone to pay a dime more in taxes. Why, the republicans would have taxes cut even more! But, stuff costs. Our lifestyle costs. (and by lifestyle I mean good roads/schools, clean water, etc...) All those things that we expect of living in America costs.

Where does it come from? If not eliminating subsidies, or raising taxes, or cutting from the military which the republicans deplore, then where? Where is it coming from? roads? Bridges? Our infrastructure is already so outdated I'm surprised only one major bridge has collapsed in the last 10 years. Maybe we don't need so many water and food inspections? Well, maybe not...until some people get sick, or die even from tainted water or food. Schools? Is there anything left to squeeze out of the schools?
Of course there is always grandma. But her rent isn't going down, nor is her food budget/utilities. And dang it all, she needs to eat..every day!

So, pay more for food/gas/stuff...or pay more in taxes to keep the subsidies (payoffs) rolling. Gee, if people (and by people I mean the big industries we pay 'protection' money to) would just be satisfied with modest profits. Even good profits would be fine. But obscene profits at the America public's expense is disgusting.
I guess I'm just sick and tired of paying my tax dollars to some greedy fat cat just for the 'privilege' of being gouged at the pump.

[Alan]

Oh you're absolutely right. Things will go up, but not necessarily because the poor companies can hardly get by without the tax payers subsidies. Again taking the big oil companies. Their profits are obscene, and they could very well take a bit of a cut. But, you are right in that they won't because greed rules! It's not the cost of production that will raise our prices but pure, nasty greed!

But, everything else will go up too, but what is the answer? I mean, everyone keeps saying we need to trim the budget, and can't possibly ask anyone to pay a dime more in taxes. Why, the republicans would have taxes cut even more! But, stuff costs. Our lifestyle costs. (and by lifestyle I mean good roads/schools, clean water, etc...) All those things that we expect of living in America costs.

Where does it come from? If not eliminating subsidies, or raising taxes, or cutting from the military which the republicans deplore, then where? Where is it coming from? roads? Bridges? Our infrastructure is already so outdated I'm surprised only one major bridge has collapsed in the last 10 years. Maybe we don't need so many water and food inspections? Well, maybe not...until some people get sick, or die even from tainted water or food. Schools? Is there anything left to squeeze out of the schools?
Of course there is always grandma. But her rent isn't going down, nor is her food budget/utilities. And dang it all, she needs to eat..every day!

So, pay more for food/gas/stuff...or pay more in taxes to keep the subsidies (payoffs) rolling. Gee, if people (and by people I mean the big industries we pay 'protection' money to) would just be satisfied with modest profits. Even good profits would be fine. But obscene profits at the America public's expense is disgusting.
I guess I'm just sick and tired of paying my tax dollars to some greedy fat cat just for the 'privilege' of being gouged at the pump.

Are roads and bridges paid for from income taxes or are they financed through gas taxes (state and federal), and use fees (commercial transportation/hauling)?

Also, what constitutes an "obscene" profit? Is it an established threshold for profit as a percentage of revenue? Are other industries besides energy, such as sports, entertainment, high tech, etc., subject to the "obscene profits" label?

When you talk about "subsidies (payoffs)", are you talking about standard business deductions such as accelerated depreciation which is applicable to all industries or is it only a payoff if it's granted to specific industries?

I can certainly understand the frustration you feel at being "gouged at the pump", but have you considered what percentage of that "gouging" is the result of state & federal taxation and the costs of environmental regulation? How much more would you be "gouged" if energy companies were excluded from enjoying the same deductions other industries enjoy?

I guess what I'm asking is, from a taxation perspective, do you feel that the government should use the tax code to encourage or discourage specific things that benefit society, and if so, how do you choose?

[bUU]

"​We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

"legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ... Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. ..."

[peggy]

Are roads and bridges paid for from income taxes or are they financed through gas taxes (state and federal), and use fees (commercial transportation/hauling)?

Also, what constitutes an "obscene" profit? Is it an established threshold for profit as a percentage of revenue? Are other industries besides energy, such as sports, entertainment, high tech, etc., subject to the "obscene profits" label?

When you talk about "subsidies (payoffs)", are you talking about standard business deductions such as accelerated depreciation which is applicable to all industries or is it only a payoff if it's granted to specific industries?

I can certainly understand the frustration you feel at being "gouged at the pump", but have you considered what percentage of that "gouging" is the result of state & federal taxation and the costs of environmental regulation? How much more would you be "gouged" if energy companies were excluded from enjoying the same deductions other industries enjoy?

I guess what I'm asking is, from a taxation perspective, do you feel that the government should use the tax code to encourage or discourage specific things that benefit society, and if so, how do you choose?

Yes, I do believe the federal highway system is cared for by the feds, but this thread seems to be jumping from federal income tax to all tax to back to just federal tax. It's all taxes, and if you are for tax reform at the federal level, then you need to mind the pennies (local taxes) too, cause it's coming from somewhere.

But, I take it you are not for tax reform, as you seem comfortable with the system we have now. At least for big business. You don't seem to want to eliminate, or reform the code to direct our tax dollars to things that do benefit us all (good roads and bridges), but keep the status quo and their 'obscene' profits. (by obscene I mean special perks gained at the public's expense) I'm all for profit, but the reality is it has to come from somewhere. It shouldn't come from our taxes.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Of course i am for business, and promoting business, but it's getting too expensive for us. Especially as republicans keep saying 'no new taxes, ever!'

Again, it has to come from somewhere. Where Alan? Where would you cut? specifically?

[Gregg]

Oh you're absolutely right. Things will go up, but not necessarily because the poor companies can hardly get by without the tax payers subsidies. Again taking the big oil companies. Their profits are obscene, and they could very well take a bit of a cut. But, you are right in that they won't because greed rules! It's not the cost of production that will raise our prices but pure, nasty greed!

I don't think that's exactly correct peggy. The people living in the US get more benefits from the subsidies than big oil does. All those "poor companies" get is money (albeit a lot of money). Being one of the 50 million or more people that have big oil stocks in their retirement accounts I get a nice benefit from that. Even if you don't have stock in the oil industry you still save a LOT of money because we don't pay true market rate for anything that uses petroleum in its manufacture, production, packaging or delivery. That's pretty much everything. We also get to live in a world that is relatively free of conflict, where disease is diminishing and where all the modern conveniences are available at the flip of a switch.

If subsidies go away prices would/will rise in conjunction with higher production costs, not because of greed. One HUGE subsidy for big oil is our military. The OPEC countries, where most of our oil comes from, are a mix of kingdoms, unstable regimes, bases for terrorist organizations and all manner of other politically unfortunate situations. As countries they need our money and we need their oil so there is a bit of a balance, but we all know who else is there. The threat of force from our military is what keeps a lot of negative activity in check. Big oil has a web of partnerships that creates drilling rigs, pipelines, refineries, shipping ports, etc. Without the military's muscle behind them the risk to infrastructure, especially in the middle east and east Africa, would simply be too high to keep going. An abrupt end to that would not be good for the US or the global economies.

Several years ago a guy named Matthew Simmons did a study on the real cost of oil. He was an industry analyst, investment banker in the petroleum business, author and a peak oil proponent. I did not immediately find the study I'm thinking of online, but I do remember his assessment was that the TRUE cost of oil was something like $450/barrel and this was several years ago. Others have come to similar conclusions. That's roughly 5x what is is currently selling for. We can eliminate the subsidies, but it wouldn't be a matter of prices going up for a while and then settling in at a level a little above where we are now. It would be the creation of a new normal that is quite a bit different than what we have going today. I'm not saying that would be all bad, but it could be a really bumpy ride to get there.

[creaker]

I don't think that's exactly correct peggy. The people living in the US get more benefits from the subsidies than big oil does. All those "poor companies" get is money (albeit a lot of money). Being one of the 50 million or more people that have big oil stocks in their retirement accounts I get a nice benefit from that. Even if you don't have stock in the oil industry you still save a LOT of money because we don't pay true market rate for anything that uses petroleum in its manufacture, production, packaging or delivery. That's pretty much everything. We also get to live in a world that is relatively free of conflict, where disease is diminishing and where all the modern conveniences are available at the flip of a switch.

If subsidies go away prices would/will rise in conjunction with higher production costs, not because of greed. One HUGE subsidy for big oil is our military. The OPEC countries, where most of our oil comes from, are a mix of kingdoms, unstable regimes, bases for terrorist organizations and all manner of other politically unfortunate situations. As countries they need our money and we need their oil so there is a bit of a balance, but we all know who else is there. The threat of force from our military is what keeps a lot of negative activity in check. Big oil has a web of partnerships that creates drilling rigs, pipelines, refineries, shipping ports, etc. Without the military's muscle behind them the risk to infrastructure, especially in the middle east and east Africa, would simply be too high to keep going. An abrupt end to that would not be good for the US or the global economies.

Several years ago a guy named Matthew Simmons did a study on the real cost of oil. He was an industry analyst, investment banker in the petroleum business, author and a peak oil proponent. I did not immediately find the study I'm thinking of online, but I do remember his assessment was that the TRUE cost of oil was something like $450/barrel and this was several years ago. Others have come to similar conclusions. That's roughly 5x what is is currently selling for. We can eliminate the subsidies, but it wouldn't be a matter of prices going up for a while and then settling in at a level a little above where we are now. It would be the creation of a new normal that is quite a bit different than what we have going today. I'm not saying that would be all bad, but it could be a really bumpy ride to get there.

Kind of makes cheap oil sound like another government entitlement program.

[peggy]

I don't think that's exactly correct peggy. The people living in the US get more benefits from the subsidies than big oil does. All those "poor companies" get is money (albeit a lot of money). Being one of the 50 million or more people that have big oil stocks in their retirement accounts I get a nice benefit from that. Even if you don't have stock in the oil industry you still save a LOT of money because we don't pay true market rate for anything that uses petroleum in its manufacture, production, packaging or delivery. That's pretty much everything. We also get to live in a world that is relatively free of conflict, where disease is diminishing and where all the modern conveniences are available at the flip of a switch.

If subsidies go away prices would/will rise in conjunction with higher production costs, not because of greed. One HUGE subsidy for big oil is our military. The OPEC countries, where most of our oil comes from, are a mix of kingdoms, unstable regimes, bases for terrorist organizations and all manner of other politically unfortunate situations. As countries they need our money and we need their oil so there is a bit of a balance, but we all know who else is there. The threat of force from our military is what keeps a lot of negative activity in check. Big oil has a web of partnerships that creates drilling rigs, pipelines, refineries, shipping ports, etc. Without the military's muscle behind them the risk to infrastructure, especially in the middle east and east Africa, would simply be too high to keep going. An abrupt end to that would not be good for the US or the global economies.

Several years ago a guy named Matthew Simmons did a study on the real cost of oil. He was an industry analyst, investment banker in the petroleum business, author and a peak oil proponent. I did not immediately find the study I'm thinking of online, but I do remember his assessment was that the TRUE cost of oil was something like $450/barrel and this was several years ago. Others have come to similar conclusions. That's roughly 5x what is is currently selling for. We can eliminate the subsidies, but it wouldn't be a matter of prices going up for a while and then settling in at a level a little above where we are now. It would be the creation of a new normal that is quite a bit different than what we have going today. I'm not saying that would be all bad, but it could be a really bumpy ride to get there.

YES! YES! By golly I think he gets it!
Now Gregg....tell me. Where. does. it. come. from? For every subsidy, there is an equal government program that is as important, as necessary, and as needed to keep THE LIFESTYLE going. This is our life. THIS IS LIFE IN THE U.S. I happen to enjoy being a citizen of this country. If I didn't, I could just self-deport, as anyone in the US is welcome to do.

Everything costs. Do we agree on that? And costs go up, just as our personal household costs go up. Do we agree on that? OK, I'm going to assume we do. Now, the question. Where does the money come from? Where? If you really believe grandma should tighten her belt to protect your retirement fund, then say so. I don't think you believe this, but I'm not sure. I'm really trying to get you to commit here, I know. But I'm a little frustrated by people who keep hollering 'cut the budget, cut the budget', but won't say what. 'Entitlements' is all i hear, but that isn't specific. As creaker pointed out, subsidies to big oil (your retirement fund) is in fact an entitlement.

I'm really not trying to pick on you Gregg, but you seem the only one who actually wants to discuss this and not just toss out a few sound bites and run. I want to discuss it too. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person, but I do realize taxes are the price of living here, and as I said, I like living here. But I also agree there is a problem we need to solve. We need to get a handle on this budget. If there are places to cut, let's cut. But I firmly believe we need to increase taxes. In context of the world, we pay relatively little taxes for what we get in return, but it's time for the reckoning.

I'm wondering if maybe we could just back off on the subsidies a bit. Not eliminate them completely, but cut back, so to speak. Yes, honey will cost more. Gas will cost more, but they manage in Europe, and there gas is sold by the liter! And really, we don't subsidise beauty shops. We don't subsidise exterminators. We need to examine all the 'favored industries' subsidies. And we need to separate the necessities, like oil, from the 'gifts', like honey, and some others whose biggest 'contribution' to society is through some senator/congress person!

So, let's you and I solve this problem. We've solved so many of the worlds problems on this forum, I think we are up to the task.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Are roads and bridges paid for from income taxes or are they financed through gas taxes (state and federal), and use fees (commercial transportation/hauling)?

Of course the exact same thing was true of Social Security for decades and then it was used to finance the general budget since it was so much in excess.

Also, what constitutes an "obscene" profit? Is it an established threshold for profit as a percentage of revenue? Are other industries besides energy, such as sports, entertainment, high tech, etc., subject to the "obscene profits" label?

Basically in a truly competitive market the rate of profit will be kept fairly low, it won't be great, due to competition of course. Excessive profit generally indicates oligopoly or some kind of rent seeking. Some of these are so called "natural monopolies" like utilities and should be regulated as such and generally are, others are rent seeking gone bananas, excessive time periods for intellectual property etc.

I can certainly understand the frustration you feel at being "gouged at the pump", but have you considered what percentage of that "gouging" is the result of state & federal taxation and the costs of environmental regulation? How much more would you be "gouged" if energy companies were excluded from enjoying the same deductions other industries enjoy?

I've always supported a carbon tax, it can be offset otherwise. Of course energy industries are subsidized in many many ways, like not paying the full cost of the mess they make (the payouts from the gulf oil spill are legally capped), like direct subsidies from the Dept of Energy (that's not mostly going to solar and wind), etc..

I guess what I'm asking is, from a taxation perspective, do you feel that the government should use the tax code to encourage or discourage specific things that benefit society, and if so, how do you choose?

I wouldn't mind if it used the tax code to tax "bads", externalities, like hey pollution and carbon (except forms of pollution that are outright banned of course). I dont' give a flying whether a person buys a house or not, but I think taxing the cost to the planet we all live on is a good idea.