Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My heart bleads for the Uber rich...past and present.
Ahhh yes.......................... you are not opposed to the principles of tyranny- just to whom they are directed. Spoken as a true liberal.
I, on the other hand, feel as though EVERYONE should have to pay a percentage of income in taxes to "have some skin in the game". Otherwise, we have one group "playing with chips" while the other group is playing with real money. Who is going to be more reckless and less responsible?
We are deep in debt. The only tax that could actually reverse this trend would be a 15% VAT coupled with a flat 20% income tax. This, of course, would have to be coupled to a balanced budget amendment (which could keep essentially all current spending intact with a 15% VAT and 20% flat income tax rate) and a 5% "earmark" for debt reduction. Otherwise, the feds would simply blow the additional revenue (as they always do).
No man should be a slave to the government. Taxing over 50% is crossing the border of personal freedom into government servitude.
Ahhh yes.......................... you are not opposed to the principles of tyranny- just to whom they are directed. Spoken as a true liberal.
I, on the other hand, feel as though EVERYONE should have to pay a percentage of income in taxes to "have some skin in the game". Otherwise, we have one group "playing with chips" while the other group is playing with real money. Who is going to be more reckless and less responsible?
We are deep in debt. The only tax that could actually reverse this trend would be a 15% VAT coupled with a flat 20% income tax. This, of course, would have to be coupled to a balanced budget amendment (which could keep essentially all current spending intact with a 15% VAT and 20% flat income tax rate) and a 5% "earmark" for debt reduction. Otherwise, the feds would simply blow the additional revenue (as they always do).
No man should be a slave to the government. Taxing over 50% is crossing the border of personal freedom into government servitude.
To be legitimate, that would require a free market in housing and scalability of home ownership. In the absence of a free housing market, government already extracts skin in the game from involuntary renters through regulation which artificially restricts supply, inflates rents, and redistributes income upward from renters to homeowners.
Not really. Those earning 1 million a year pay an average of 24%, and those earning 10 million pay an average of 19%. This is due to various tax loopholes and dodges.
No, it's due to the government incentivizing investment in the U.S. economy by taxing long-term investment income gains at a lower rate.
As a country, we could remove the incentive to invest long-term in the U.S. economy and let that money seek higher returns elsewhere in the world. Shall we?
Is it fair to demand those who make more, pay more percentage of their income in tax?
It seems to me we all have 'skin in the game' with respect to running the nation and each should pay an equal percentage. I would also argue that fraud, waste and abuse as well as overly funded social payouts could reduce income taxes 50%.
There is no percentage of income that will ever be "fair".
Let's say you have a single 22-year-old living with 3 roommates making $25,000 a year that is spending 40% of his income on beer, stereo equipment, game consoles, etc while paying 10% of his earning in federal income taxes.
Let's say you have a married 45-year-old with 3 children and a wife making a combined $80,000 a year that is spending all of their money on essentials and college for the oldest 2 children with no frivolous spending at all while paying 20% of their earnings on federal income taxes.
Is that fair?
I don't think so, which is why I believe we should switch to a sales tax based system where people who spend more money on non-essentials pay more taxes. So, if you have 2 rich guys making $500,000 a year and 1 spends his money on sports cars and boats while the other gives 30% to charities, the guy buying the cars and boats pays more in taxes.
It sounds to me like millions of deaths are in the future.
I know kidkaos2 gets the reference.
According to Keynes, there are billions of deaths in the future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
