Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-24-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,401 times
Reputation: 1378

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by linh3203 View Post
I think 30% on 60k and above assuming family of 4 (2 dependents). Some of the lower income would not be able to survive with the 30%.

An inverted-progressive (hope this makes sense) rate as income get lower would be fine lol

Equality just doesn't seem to benefit the whole society in this type of situation.
Doesn't a personal exemption for each person do the same thing?

$5,000 one person family

$10,000 two person family

$15,000 three person family

$20,000 four person family
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2012, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,567,236 times
Reputation: 3151
It WON'T raise revenue, as the folks in Jolly Old England have recently discovered after trying their version of 'soak the rich'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 04:59 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,221,813 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Doesn't a personal exemption for each person do the same thing?

$5,000 one person family

$10,000 two person family

$15,000 three person family

$20,000 four person family
So you are not really for the 30% tax on all income as proposed by the OP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,401 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
So you are not really for the 30% tax on all income as proposed by the OP
Don't think that is what the op suggested based on the thread title.

No, I don't think the income needed to provided for your survival should be taxed. Much like here in Ohio there is no sales tax on food, why would you charge income tax on the money someone would need to eat? Would you suggest you tax welfare payments or social security payment? Why? Why give aid with one hand and take with the other, what does that accomplish? It is counter intuitive, why give them more aid than they need just so they can pay your symbolic tax.

Last edited by buzzards27; 02-25-2012 at 07:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661
I propose going back to the rates that Reagan felt was fine, 50% top ordinary income rate; capital gains of 60% for short and 40% for long-term. Under those rates, the government had plenty of money -- enough to give the states money under Revenue Sharing, that provided local schools funds for education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 07:51 AM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,852,928 times
Reputation: 9283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I propose going back to the rates that Reagan felt was fine, 50% top ordinary income rate; capital gains of 60% for short and 40% for long-term. Under those rates, the government had plenty of money -- enough to give the states money under Revenue Sharing, that provided local schools funds for education.
30% tax for bigger government while you want 50% tax? No thanks...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,221,813 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by linh3203 View Post
Why are republicans so much against the "Buffet rule"?
can you actually make an argument that provides adequate rationality to go against this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Don't think that is what the op suggested based on the thread title.

No, I don't think the income needed to provided for your survival should be taxed. Much like here in Ohio there is no sales tax on food, why would you charge income tax on the money someone would need to eat? Would you suggest you tax welfare payments or social security payment? Why? Why give aid with one hand and take with the other, what does that accomplish? It is counter intuitive, why give them more aid than they need just so they can pay your symbolic tax.
I suggest the fair tax
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
30% tax for bigger government while you want 50% tax? No thanks...
Where do you get this meme?

The government spends roughly the same %p of GDP independent of tax-rates. As said in the conservative Weekly Standard:

"We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse."

But notice how the GOP viewpoint on spending has changed since Obama has been elected? Now, the GOP believes that Funds for tornado victims should be offset and that we can't possibly afford $1.8 million for treatment and prevention of HIV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 09:21 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,837,332 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I propose going back to the rates that Reagan felt was fine, 50% top ordinary income rate; capital gains of 60% for short and 40% for long-term. Under those rates, the government had plenty of money -- enough to give the states money under Revenue Sharing, that provided local schools funds for education.
you forget that before reagan came into office, the top marginal rates were much higher. reagan LOWERED the top rates to 50% and then to 28%, and the economy boomed as a result. if we were to raise the rates now the economy would go back into the tank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 09:27 AM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,280,777 times
Reputation: 3296
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you forget that before reagan came into office, the top marginal rates were much higher. reagan LOWERED the top rates to 50% and then to 28%, and the economy boomed as a result. if we were to raise the rates now the economy would go back into the tank.
Plus nobody wants write offs for people anymore and when rates were higher than 28% when government was 60% smaller you wrote of just about everything against the taxes due.

Our government is overgrown into a tax sucking monster that has massively over employed the public to 1-9 instead of the old 1- 150. What we have going now is unsustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top