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.
Funny how the people who have the least to give expect the most from the most productive minority. Just ignore the fact that the wealthy already pay the lions share, create the most jobs (eww) and keep things rolling. Yes, lets keep looking to them to pay our debts, while at the same time demonizing them. It certainly must be bliss.
Now that is funny! Haven't you noticed that the "trickle down economics" hasn't worked yet?
Tax revenues were at its highest amount at the end of the Bush years - and that was after a two year decline. What happened in 2003? Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act in May 2003.
The declines were concurrent with the 9/11 attack in 2001, and the crash of 2008.
We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.
Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)
Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)
Eliminate payroll taxes
Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.
Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.
Well well well, we Finally agree on something
Casper
Trickle down economics is a total joke that has been disproven over the last 30 years. That some Americans continue to buy into this charade foisted on them by the Republicans is quite disgusting.
[quote=BirchBarlow;20024085]We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.
Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)
Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)
Eliminate payroll taxes
Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.
Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.[/quote]
Some of you seemed have missed the last item on the list, let me help. Oh FYI, the numbers Do work this subject has been studied in detail and they work very well. Guess who is most against this, the Rich and Big Business, look at the lists again and see the answer why, clue it is right above the words in red
Casper
We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.
Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)
Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)
Eliminate payroll taxes
Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.
Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.[/quote]
Some of you seemed have missed the last item on the list, let me help. Oh FYI, the numbers Do work this subject has been studied in detail and they work very well. Guess who is most against this, the Rich and Big Business, look at the lists again and see the answer why, clue it is right above the words in red
Casper
The only deductions that the rich want to get rid of is the child care because they don't qualify.
Do you prefer "actual" dollars to "constant" dollars in historical economic comparisons? Why?
Quote:
Tax revenues were at its highest amount at the end of the Bush years - and that was after a two year decline. What happened in 2003? Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act in May 2003.
And economic growth act in 2001 (EGTRRA). JGTRRA you speak of, was instituted because the first didn't work. JGTRRA worked, thanks to the housing bubble.
Quote:
The declines were concurrent with the 9/11 attack in 2001, and the crash of 2008.
Considering that you rely on current dollars over constant, I'm not surprised at your conclusions. Having said that, based on the charts you presented, and your assumption, tax revenue increased going from Reagan tax rates to Clinton tax rates as well. No?
We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.
Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)
Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)
Eliminate payroll taxes
Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.
Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.
You are correct. They way to raise revenue is to get more people working which means make the US more business friendly. Revenues under Bush were pouring in because people were working. That is the argument they should be having. I think corp taxes should be cut to zero for five years then ticked up say 2% a year after until some sort of balance is met. I doubt a flat tax will fly at this point. Too many uneducated on it. I'm really surprised a VAT tax isn't being pushed hard by the left but that would not punish the evil rich enough. All they're worried about now is kicking the ball past 2012.
You are correct. They way to raise revenue is to get more people working which means make the US more business friendly. Revenues under Bush were pouring in because people were working. That is the argument they should be having. I think corp taxes should be cut to zero for five years then ticked up say 2% a year after until some sort of balance is met. I doubt a flat tax will fly at this point. Too many uneducated on it. I'm really surprised a VAT tax isn't being pushed hard by the left but that would not punish the evil rich enough. All they're worried about now is kicking the ball past 2012.
What on earth are you talking about? This entire post is nonsensical, but the part on VAT is esspecially strange - VAT is a sales tax fixed at a certain rate. Why would the left push for it? If that were instituted you would have people making a million dollars per year paying the same tax on a purchase as somebody stacking shelves at a grocery store.. why the hell would that be good???
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.
