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.
I think eventually everyone's taxes will have to be increased.
In terms of Clinton era spending, why would you set this arbitrary limit?
We have like 30million more people than when Clinton was last president.
The over age of 65 population is exploding. We face an increasing demand for a better educated populace.
To tie this nation to some artificial limit that may prevent us from meeting the current challenges is kind of foolish.
For what? We are not even at full employment now. Its a fiat currency that the government prints. There is nothing to pay except inflation. That only happens when new money doesn't create supply, like now from bank credit that never enters the market without bloating an asset.
Yes, the income tax is progressive, but basically all other taxes are regressive. And many of the tax savings are regressive as well.
The 401k tax savings where a person's taxable income is lowered by the amount they put into the 401k, is a huge giveaway to higher income earners who were already saving for retirement, and many low income workers have employers who don't offer 401k plans or they earn so little that they need all of their income to live.
The mortgage interest deduction is another giveaway to higher income earners while those who pay rent get nothing. Those who own homes have higher incomes than those who rent on average.
The employer provided health insurance tax exclusion is another giveaway to higher income earners while those low income workers often don't have employer provided health care or can't afford because they earn so little.
Not to mention, the regressive sales taxes in many states.
So, yes low income workers do get certain tax benefits, but they also are penalized.
High income earners can pay a lot of income taxes, but they also benefit in the ways I listed.
I'd say the US has a progressive income tax, but our overall taxes are fairly flat.
And I contend that life isn't fair. Never was. Never will be.
No government entity can make it fair.
I will never make claims on your property and I expect the same respect from you.
Why do lefties feel as though the Clinton era tax rates were the exact, right tax rates that we need?
What is foolish is the belief that we can continue to allow our government to spend without limits and then blame successful people for the deficit.
Your own Conservative stooge said deficits don't matter. He was right. What is foolish is thinking unemployment and saving computer generated credits is saving. Its learned insanity.
And I contend that life isn't fair. Never was. Never will be.
No government entity can make it fair.
I will never make claims on your property and I expect the same respect from you.
Silly point. Life not being fair has nothing to do with anything.
Our government writes tax laws that benefits some and not others that is not life being unfair, that is the government writing tax laws that benefit some and not others.
I think taxation across the board should be progressive. Any tax policy that hurts lower income Americans and helps higher income Americans should be changed.
For what? We are not even at full employment now. Its a fiat currency that the government prints. There is nothing to pay except inflation. That only happens when new money doesn't create supply, like now from bank credit that never enters the market without bloating an asset.
I thin everyone's taxes should be increased when the economy is healthier and incomes for all Americans are growing.
I think that what our government spends is roughly is what we should aim to collect in taxes. Or at least to where the budget deficits aren't growing out of control.
Now a huge part of this is the economy, once it's growing at a faster clip, revenue will increase, but to make up some of the short fall we will need to raise taxes on everyone or at least on many more people.
I thin everyone's taxes should be increased when the economy is healthier and incomes for all Americans are growing.
I think that what our government spends is roughly is what we should aim to collect in taxes. Or at least to where the budget deficits aren't growing out of control.
Now a huge part of this is the economy, once it's growing at a faster clip, revenue will increase, but to make up some of the short fall we will need to raise taxes on everyone or at least on many more people.
Do you mean taxes should keep up with spending?
I'd rather see spending stay within revenue. That's a bit different.
IMHO the fair share for the top 10% is 100% of Federal Income taxes. In addition we need a Federal real and financial property tax and countervailing tariffs to fund our government.
^^^ thanks for substantiating my point about the greed of the lower classes.
Yeah the lazy CNA and her three houses are going to ruin us all.
The people at the top pay lots of taxes because they earn most of the money. Their wages have gone up while everyone else has seen at best a small rise. To complain about that fact is obscene. Most really rich people are like Romney: high earners who pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. Look up the words carried interest.
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.
Fair share?
