Share your thoughts: Should income tax rates expire in 2013? If not, who should get them?
Should federal income tax cuts set to expire in January 2013 be extended one year?
- For all income levels (50%, 51 votes)
- For incomes less than $250,000 (32%, 32 votes)
- For incomes less than $1 million (5%, 5 votes)
- Shouldn't be extended (7%, 7 votes)
- Don't know (6%, 5 votes)
Total voters: 101
Loading ...This NBBJ Pulse Poll runs through July 17. View all polls.
Lower Bush Administration income tax rates adopted a decade ago are set to expire Jan. 1, 2013, along with lower estate and investment taxes that were part of a December 2010 extension deal between President Obama and Congress.
The President has proposed that current income tax rates should be extended for one year just for households with income of less than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals). Democratic Party leaders in Congress such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco want to extend the lower rates to incomes of less than $1 million. Republican legislators want the rates to apply to everyone.
Economists have warned that the increase of various tax rates at the beginning of next year could severely damage the fragile economy.
Advocates of letting the lower rates end point to administration projections that higher rates for those with higher incomes would bring in as much as $678 billion in additional revenue through 2020, while leaving the rates in place for all would cost $4 trillion plus interest on additional debt accumulated from continual deficits.
Opponents point to tax policy theory that lower rates result in more economic activity and eventually higher government revenue.
Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Copyright © 1988–2013 North Bay Business Journal
View the policy for linking to website content.
by Rod
I urge everyone to reason the justification to tax somebody’s income. I get that taxes are a necessary evil which serves everyone’s best interests, but the means does not justify the end, which is something our tax code has been ignoring for some time. I also ask that we reconsider our terms of assigning and obtaining that of which we value, and whenever we mention value we ask ourselves; of what value and to whom. Rarely does any free person value anything the same as another, and to force one’s perception of value onto another is a form of tyranny. Should government have the ability to force their hand via a manipulative tax system.
The government is only responsible for creating an environment free from force and coercion. That is, there should be recourse should you be deceived during a transaction and/or forced against your will to purchase or sell a product/service. Granted this has become an expensive cost, but it has become a cost that is cloaked within our tax system which can no longer me measured. How are we to hold government accountable for something when we can not compare the services provided and the associated costs?
The income tax is an affront on the mind of man. The only way to gain income is to exchange goods/services in the marketplace. Nobody has ever gotten rich by not exchanging. But, if you and I are in the business of selling candy bars, and your candy bar tastes better than mine, then more people are going to freely exchange for your candy bar than mine. The result of you providing a superior product means you will make more income than I do, but what claim does the government have over your ability to create more value for others? Is the government responsible for people’s perception of your candy bar being a better product which leads to more income for you? The income tax says so!
If income is generated because a free people perceive your product to be of higher value than another’s, what claim does the government have to any of that income? The income tax is laying claim to your ability to create value for others and at the same time is laying claim to the perception that people are obviously valuing more than the money they are exchanging for it.
Another example: If you and I were fisherman, and you were able to catch more fish in the same amount of time, should you pay more taxes because of your ability and expertise that allows you to catch more fish? What claim does the government have to tax you more than I? And if I were only fishing to feed my family, but since you are soo proficient at catching fish I decide to buy fish from you so that I can do things that I am more proficient at, is the government responsible for creating the value you offer me? If not, then what claim does the government have to ANY of your income since it was my perception of the value you were creating for me that determined the exchange?
The government can only lay claim to creating a marketplace free of force and coercion. The ONLY tax that is justifiable to serve this purpose is a point of sale tax, a sales tax.
Income taxes are an affront on the mind of man!