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.
WHo said anything about being fair? Where in this thread did I mention anything about being fair? This has to do with balancing the budget. The simple fact is that you have put tax -BACK TO WHERE IT WAS- and decrease the expenditures to cut into the debt. As a percentage the very wealthy pay less than the middle class, there is nowhere else for the money to come from. It has nothing to do with incentive.
Do you think Bill Gates was ever thinking...well I won't do the work if I only come out with 20 billion...no I am going to have to make 40 billion....Really?
Do you think that the Walton children were thinking...oh wait they did not think at all, they inherited all of their money.
Hear, hear. Back to where it was. How about where it was when this country was founded? When the early americans fought and died to shake off the chains of taxes? Back to just enough to take care of our army and our roads. The rest can be paid by the people that use the services, but know best how to run them - local schools, trash, etc.
Sorry, don't have time to read 62 page thesis. I am in agreement on corporate tax on multinationals, but I disagree on everything else.
You are repeating the same old dogma. Please explain how this works exactly.
Here is how my example works.
Scenario # 1. John Smith is billionaire. John Smith smith decides his best investment alternatives are in bunghole encyclopedia company located in non existant Country. He takes most of his vast wealth and invests in bunghole company, which of course is outside of the U.S. How much has been invested in the U.S....zero. He makes 100 million off of his investment and 15 % is taxed. 15 million goes to the govt.
Scenario #2. John Smith is taxed at 50% and 15 million goes to the govt. to pay off debt. 35% go to the govt. to pay for infrastructure, which employees private companies in the u.s to build bridges. 35 million goes directly into the u.s. economy. Which is better for the U.S. economy?
Our government needs to stop worrying about what's best for our economy, and let John Smith free to worry about what's best for John Smith. When he succeeds, the economy will improve.
We as a society own the debt. I do get to vote as to how to distribute the burden of that debt. The fact is you can't get blood from a stone. The extremely wealthy is the only place to get additional revenue. They have all of the money.
Actually, the poor have all the money. If you take it away from them, you've got lots of revenue left over.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
If you are using my chart, it is representative of the HIGHEST tax brackets. I would have no problem with capital gains tax of 90% for people making over 3 million a year in capital gains. That is fair.
I thought we weren't talking about fair. Woopsie, here we are, talking about "fair".
Not going to read your chart. Don't have time. I'll just make arguments based on my feelings.....
As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues have been higher during periods of higher taxes. To put that in perspective, at the end of each decade over last half century:
1960: 17.8% of GDP
1970: 19.0% of GDP
1980: 19.0% of GDP
1990: 18.0% of GDP
2000: 20.6% of GDP
2010: 14.9% of GDP
One could argue that the decade of 2001-2010 has been the worst in terms of tax revenue since at least the 1950s. About 18+% can be accepted as average as seen over last 50 years, but that sounds like a feat considering it has been achieved only twice in the 2000s.
2000 was an anomaly, the amount of one time high income tax returns was . The amount of revenue that came from stock option related activities was massive between 98-00.
Income among those making over $200k GROSS dropped by 26% between 2000-2002, it didn't comeback above 2000 until 2005 and then plunged again in 09. No matter what rate we have we would have still seen revenue drop
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Actually I was being facetious on the 90% over 3 million. I do believe it should be at least the amount of the highest income bracket. Buffet maid 46 million on capital gains and was only taxed 15 percent, whereas a doctor making 260k was taxed at around 35%. Should be at least the same.
You would want to tax up to a point that they would not jump ship and go to Ireland etc. As long as the tax rates or lower or the same, I don't see a problem.
If that is the case we should go after the privileged elite, not just a shotgun approach that captures the successful as well as those abusing the system.
Hear, hear. Back to where it was. How about where it was when this country was founded? When the early americans fought and died to shake off the chains of taxes? Back to just enough to take care of our army and our roads. The rest can be paid by the people that use the services, but know best how to run them - local schools, trash, etc.
Pssst.......your class envy is showing.
The early Americans didn't fight against taxes, they fought against taxation without representation -- that's why taxation is in the constitution as a power of Congress. I know the reactionaries think that returning to 1789 solves all the problems... we won't mention slavery or smallpox or a life expectancy of 40. The reality is that those days are gone and aren't coming back. So, to suggest that we mimic a time long gone is just silly.
The issue is prosperity and how to achieve it. Recent history shows us that when Bill Clinton proposed raising taxes, the right-wing, just as today, predicted economic catastrophe. Instead, we got a sustained period of prosperity. During our parent's time, taxes were far higher -- even in Reagan's time (50% top rates.) The period in the middle of the 20th century had very high taxes and the largest growth of the middle class. Thus, the claim that moderate taxation, which is higher than today's, hampers economic growth has no basis in history or fact -- as in none whatsoever, zilch! So let's stop spreading that meme.
Actually, the poor have all the money. If you take it away from them, you've got lots of revenue left over.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Yep. A HUGE amount of taxpayer money is spent on the poor. Eliminate that spending, which is artificially supporting an exponentionally growing dependent class which cannot be sustained, and we'll have no problem paying off the debt and having the government spend no more than it takes in in revenues.
Yep. A HUGE amount of taxpayer money is spent on the poor. Eliminate that spending, which is artificially supporting an exponentionally growing dependent class which cannot be sustained, and we'll have no problem paying off the debt and having the government spend no more than it takes in in revenues.
Which programs do you cut? The big three are medicaid, medicare and Defense. You won't make a dent unless you take these three on.
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.
