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.
1. Repeal the upper exemption for FICA and allocate the newly taxed money to welfare.
2. Upgrade the maximum tax on income to 95% over $1M.
3. Raise the estate tax to 95% over $5M.
4. Raise the corporate tax to 75%.
5. Nationalize the phone, oil, electric, and financial industries.
6. Federalize buildings in "food deserts" and turn them into food centers and gardens.
7. Guarantee a minimum income for all Americans, prorated to standard of living and ignoring gender, sexual, age, race, ethnicity, and documentation preferences/identifications, which will allow them to afford housing, food, energy, transportation, and basic cable.
Higher tax rates never result in higher tax revenues much to the consternation of ignorant Democrats; look no farther than California, home to sky-high taxes, a below-replacement birth rate, and the highest poverty rate in the nation as a front-page story in the LA Times pointed out recently.
See what decades of unchecked soak-the-rich tax policies will get you?
A millionaire's tax won't work either; the wiseguys in the Maryland legislature tried that long-discredited ploy recently, and the predictable result was a 35% drop in the percentage of tax returns with AGIs in excess of $1,000,000.
Democrats are ignorant about taxes, and they always have been, with plenty of evidence from coast to coast for several decades, yet they refuse to change their ways.
You obviously believe everything the propagandists tell you. Higher taxes do result in higher tax revenues, and lower tax rates result in lower tax revenues. Part of the US deficit problem is that politicians get re-elected by promising to lower taxes, and nobody wants to raise taxes, so they just borrow and spend.
A millionaire's tax works wonders. What you see as a drop in declared income on tax returns is actually those people reinvesting their business proceeds instead of taking it as income. This stimulates business activity and increases their net worth. Employment goes up. People make more money. The economy does great. That's why very high income taxes are a big stimulant to the economy; money reinvested is tax free.
Quit listening to the professional "economists" who are paid to say things that please their bosses, and look at the real world.
That's where the democrats come in and give people some help. It will prevent a revolution.
Food stamps and HDTV, the modern equivalent of bread and circuses in the Roman Empire. It won't prevent a revolution, but it will postpone it for a while. I don't know anyone who thinks the system is stable.
Higher tax rates never result in higher tax revenues much to the consternation of ignorant Democrats; look no farther than California, home to sky-high taxes, a below-replacement birth rate, and the highest poverty rate in the nation as a front-page story in the LA Times pointed out recently.
See what decades of unchecked soak-the-rich tax policies will get you?
A millionaire's tax won't work either; the wiseguys in the Maryland legislature tried that long-discredited ploy recently, and the predictable result was a 35% drop in the percentage of tax returns with AGIs in excess of $1,000,000.
Democrats are ignorant about taxes, and they always have been, with plenty of evidence from coast to coast for several decades, yet they refuse to change their ways.
Higher property tax rates often result in higher property tax revenues because property values increase more often than they decrease.
Seattle has low unemployment and a very high minimum wage.
Your response is the typical Republican rich white guy response though. Companies are not going to lay off tons of people just because the minimum wage goes up. When people talk about raising the minimum wage they generally mean by just a couple of dollars. Don't feel bad for companies like McDonald's. They can afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
When this is actually done, this result is not what happens that often. These raises go right back into the economy. These aren't people who save money, they're the economy's spenders.
IMO, if a business cannot afford to pay it's workers a livable wage (I'd settle for $11/hr, maybe $10.50/hr. $15/hr is outrageous) then it's not very well run and shouldn't be in business.
This is correct the people against raising the minimum wage have never been able to dispute it. The biggest boon to the economy is giving lower wage earners a raise. They spend all of the extra money they get. This is more cars being bought, more electronics being bought, etc.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 12-28-2014 at 07:07 AM..
Good. Well, except for the only PROBLEM of which group it's happening with.
That is what we need to focus on first: fewer net consumers.
Then we can focus on fewer people in total.
Then we can focus on maintaining... a healthy producer:consumer stasis.
One goal at a time.
Work at it.
There is a second order problem - the age cohorts do not have the same number of people. So, the number of people working to support retirees can become onerous. Indeed, it already has become so in the USA. The idea of paying old age benefits (Social Security) out of current tax revenue from currently working people doesn't work well when we have the kind of population bubbles we've had from the baby boom & the echo boom.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out -- it takes a demographer. "A Demographer," the old joke goes, "is sort of like an accountant but with less personality."
[resize=80][/resize]
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 12-28-2014 at 09:12 AM..
Higher tax rates never result in higher tax revenues much to the consternation of ignorant Democrats...
There are two issues. First, for many Progressives, The Objective of higher tax rates is not to generate more tax revenue (it can be a nice consequence, but not The Objective). For these Progressives, The Objective of higher tax rates is quite simply to soak the rich. That is, The Objective is redistribution of wealth.
The second issue is that yes, indeed, higher tax rates can result in higher tax revenue. The issues is where are we on the Laffer Curve. All serious economists agree with the end points -- with a zero tax rate, there is zero tax revenue. With a 100% tax rate, there will be zero (or near zero) revenue (there are some extreme cases such as War where this might not be true). If tax rates are quite low, then raising tax rates will indeed increase tax revenue.
Conservatives like the Laffer Curve because it fosters a discussion about how to maximize tax revenue. Progressives dislike the Laffer Curve because it misses the all-important Objective, which of course is redistribution of wealth.
There are many studies attempting to estimate where we are on the Laffer Curve and where the maximum tax revenue point is. Unfortunately, they do not agree. They are not even close to agreement.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 12-28-2014 at 08:46 AM..
1. Repeal the upper exemption for FICA and allocate the newly taxed money to welfare.
2. Upgrade the maximum tax on income to 95% over $1M.
3. Raise the estate tax to 95% over $5M.
4. Raise the corporate tax to 75%.
5. Nationalize the phone, oil, electric, and financial industries.
6. Federalize buildings in "food deserts" and turn them into food centers and gardens.
7. Guarantee a minimum income for all Americans, prorated to standard of living and ignoring gender, sexual, age, race, ethnicity, and documentation preferences/identifications, which will allow them to afford housing, food, energy, transportation, and basic cable.
I'm sure that the ideas that you propose above would create much greater income equality.
But I doubt they would create greater wealth for the underclasses.
Total income, GDP, isn't a constant. A guaranteed minimum income would encourage some people just to sit on their keisters and collect. Extremely high taxes on wealthy people would discourage them from taking risks or working much at all after they achieved a certain amount.
Both of these factors means the total income would likely go down, and the average would go down
First... go back and resize that attachment. Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
There is a second order problem - the age cohorts do not have the same number of people.
So, the number of people working to support retirees can become onerous.
No one said it would be easy.
But just be VERY clear to distinguish between the number of people working to support
(implying wage levels sufficient to be taxed in any meaningful way)...with the raw number
of people of comparable age to them too many of whom simply won't ever
have wage levels sufficient to be taxed in any meaningful way.
This latter subset is TODAY's problem as well.
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.
[/resize]
