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)
View Poll Results: Would you vote for this proposal?
Yes 7 11.11%
No 56 88.89%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2014, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,221,236 times
Reputation: 6553

Advertisements

I have no issue with raising the percentage paid. I do have an issue with making it punitive. It destroys incentive to succeed. After all why work hard if your reward is to pay more. I would prefer that everyone pay federal taxes.
PA uses a flat tax. The township I live in uses a flat tax. Keep it simple and keep it fair. As for federal if we absolutely need a progressive rate, then everyone needs to pay and do away with returns.
What I really advocate is for the FED to live within its means and do away with the massive redundancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2014, 07:57 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,405,433 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
You make the silly mistake that people will always vote for the proposal that is selfishly best for them.
No, I'm well aware (i.e. Republican voters).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
I think all but the poorest should pay SOME income taxes. Every person that has income should feel the sting, however small, of paying taxes toward the government services they benefit from.

No one should ever be taxed 90%, even marginally.
Why did we have such high rates previously? (along with a strong middle class)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Adjusting marginal rates for inflation? So compounding inflation over a few years and your proposed rates will reach 100%.
No, adjusting the dollars for inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
You desperately want high earners to pay more. The path to that is tax simplification. Remove the complexity of the tax code and you eliminate the deductions and special benefits only those with accountants and lawyers can take advantage of.
I don't desperately want anything... it is a conceptual question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
BTW - your proposal, if ever put in place, would cause MASSIVE amounts of income and wealth to leave the country. No wealthy person would choose to be paid in the US and pay US taxes.
Like what is not happening in France?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:00 PM
 
18,548 posts, read 15,586,958 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
This is more of a conceptual question than you think. Answer with a simple yes or no.

Proposal:

-Capital Gains Taxes taxed the same as regular income taxes.
-Eliminate Corporate Taxes
-Income tax marginal rates adjusted for inflation going forward

New marginal rates (double for married filers):

$0-$500,000: 0%

$500,000 - $1 million: 50%

$1 million+: 90%
No, we (as a country, I mean) can't afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:01 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,405,433 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
No, we can't afford it.
Says who... your government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:01 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,408,962 times
Reputation: 6388
When we were young marrieds, college student working part-time and insurance company clerk at entry level job, we paid $1,000 in federal income tax on less than $11,000 in income--back in the 1970's. Although it was hard and seemed unjust to have taxes withheld all year and then have to send in even more with the tax return, WE WERE SHAREHOLDERS in the great enterprise known as America. We were helping to row the boat.

The scheme proposed turns 90-some per cent of us into freeloaders. This is destructive of the human spirit, and would lead to big trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,176,487 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
No, I'm well aware (i.e. Republican voters).



Why did we have such high rates previously? (along with a strong middle class)



No, adjusting the dollars for inflation.



I don't desperately want anything... it is a conceptual question.



Like what is not happening in France?

Lower income urban Dems in cities don't vote selfishly? You must be joking.

Money is leaving France. France is in trouble - but you may not be paying attention.

It is true we had high marginal rates. We also had rampant racism and sexism at the time. Less educated workforce, and the educated workforce was white men. Please explain, with cause and effect, not correlation, that high marginal tax rates produced a strong middle class.

The only part of your proposal that makes sense is eliminating corporate income taxes. That will bring money back into the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:44 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,405,433 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Lower income urban Dems in cities don't vote selfishly? You must be joking.

Money is leaving France. France is in trouble - but you may not be paying attention.

It is true we had high marginal rates. We also had rampant racism and sexism at the time. Less educated workforce, and the educated workforce was white men. Please explain, with cause and effect, not correlation, that high marginal tax rates produced a strong middle class.

The only part of your proposal that makes sense is eliminating corporate income taxes. That will bring money back into the US.
*shrugs*

You're the one voting against your own interests, both in this thread and in real life.

Republicans deliberately want to make the rich richer, and you poorer. But you're all geared up to give them your vote next week.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 09:02 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,624,265 times
Reputation: 18521
You make a million, you keep $100,000
You make $500,000, you keep $250,000
You make $450,000, you keep $450,000


That's fair isn't it? [face palm]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 09:07 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,405,433 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You make a million, you keep $100,000
You make $500,000, you keep $250,000
You make $450,000, you keep $450,000


That's fair isn't it? [face palm]
It's not fair debating with someone who doesn't understand marginal rates.

Rolling on the floor laughing.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,418,303 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
So, incorporate your business and pay no corporate tax.


I know exactly what I'm proposing. It is a deliberate representation of what is lacking in our ideology.

All economics comes down to motive. Taxation is about values, not actual revenue. It is all made up bull**** from the government. I offered a plant that will allow over 99% of Americans to pay no income tax, and most people are against it because they desperately want to be in the 1%, or want to protect the 1%. It's hilarious.

Maybe they are against it because they realize it's impossible.

Economics is about allocation of resources. People like you victimize the 1% while expecting them to pay for everything. You guys still can't grasp how regressive taxes are in the countries you wish America was like. I wouldn't have a problem with your "plan" as long as you added one caveat: The government can't spend more than it takes in. It would never happen.

By the way, when the rates were 90% in the past nobody actually paid them. In one year - 1937 I believe - not a single tax return paid the top marginal rate. First, those rates were on income that was in the millions. Second, taxpayers just restructure their finances. Few are going to give away 90%, especially when the other 99% pay zero. That giant sucking sound Ross Perot mentioned would return on steroids.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 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