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.
By saying the differences the between D's and R's are but a "matter of degree" you are all but agreeing with me. In the totality of govt the differences are razor thin.
I didnt see where you mention cutting spending or eliminating schemes and depts the very existence of which are in contradiction to the your own rulebook i.e. the constitution.
We need to pay off the debt. I say let’s start by making a small dent there, and NOT increasing spending.
And that’s what a compromise is. If you insist on your “government pays for nothing....each loser for himself” mantra, nothing would ever change.
We need to pay off the debt. I say let’s start by making a small dent there, and NOT increasing spending.
We need to stop increasing the debt first and foremost.
Under Trump we had both the largest and fastest debt increase in history. This has to stop and we need to stop trying to "tax our way out of everything".
Yeah that's a good start but I think the number of people who make more than $400k and the amount of income that would be affected by this suggestion is bigger than you think.
It's not, though. There are only about 2 million US 1040s filed with an income greater than $400,000. That's out of the 143 million that are filed each year. So, less than 2% of all US 1040 filers have an income of $400,000 or more. (Incidentally, the top 1% starts at an income of about $515,000). So out of a total federal income tax revenue of about $11 trillion, taxing just those who earn over $400,000 another 1% would only generate an additional $25-30 billion in tax revenue, or another 0.27% to 0.30%.
Quote:
Along the same lines, I think bumping up the Corp Tax rate by a couple of percentage points and the capital gains rate by maybe 10% for people making over $400k would help too. I also wouldn't mind if some of the revenue gained by these tax increases went to improving infrastructure rather than just paying down debt.
We could raise the corporate income tax, but just be sure you realize WHO actually pays that. Again, making it easy to understand...
No sales = no profits = no corporate income tax is paid.
Sales = profits = corporate income tax is paid out of sales revenues.
Corporate taxes are a hidden tax on the consumer that negatively impacts the poor the most. Why is that? Because the poor must spend all or almost all their money buying/renting their basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). The same is not true of higher-income earners.
On that note, as I've explained and asked in another thread... Look at how European countries tax. They have fewer and flatter income tax brackets, and rely FAR more heavily on a national sales tax.
You can see it quite clearly in this chart. Look at all the countries that have flat or regressive tax systems (at or to the left of the 0.00 mark on the x-axis), and you'll see that by collecting more tax revenue from more people, they're much more able to fund social program benefits like national health care, parental/family leave, free tuition (though students are still on the hook to fund their own living expenses), etc.
Using Sweden as an example... Sweden taxes quite regressively (-0.04 compared to the US at +0.06) even though it has more billionaires per capita than the US. Why can't a similar system that's obviously quite successful be used in the US?
What I'm saying is that IF Americans want Euro-style social program benefits, they're going to HAVE to start paying Euro-style regressive taxes in order to generate enough tax revenue to fund them without tanking the economy.
It's not, though. There are only about 2 million US 1040s filed with an income greater than $400,000. That's out of the 143 million that are filed each year.
And what is never discussed is income mobility. It isn't the same 2 million people every year. There are roughly 800,000 people in that 2 million who might be there one year, but not the next. People have spikes in income for all kinds of reasons. The Joint Committee on Taxation published a report on income mobility 4 or 5 years years ago that was incredibly instructive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We could raise the corporate income tax, but just be sure you realize WHO actually pays that. Again, making it easy to understand...
We could raise the corporate income tax, but beyond understanding who actually pays it, it is important to understand that the U.S. cannot be substantially higher than other countries and retain businesses. The rush of U.S. companies to get themselves "bought" by foreign companies to establish HQs outside the U.S. and take advantage of better tax rates. That means the U.S. loses more than it gains.
And what is never discussed is income mobility. It isn't the same 2 million people every year. There are roughly 800,000 people in that 2 million who might be there one year, but not the next. People have spikes in income for all kinds of reasons. The Joint Committee on Taxation published a report on income mobility 4 or 5 years years ago that was incredibly instructive.
We could raise the corporate income tax, but beyond understanding who actually pays it, it is important to understand that the U.S. cannot be substantially higher than other countries and retain businesses. The rush of U.S. companies to get themselves "bought" by foreign companies to establish HQs outside the U.S. and take advantage of better tax rates. That means the U.S. loses more than it gains.
Yep. That's what Warren (tax me more ) Buffett did with Burger King. It's now owned by Restaurant Brands International (Tim Hortons, etc.), headquartered in Canada, and paying Canada's lower 15% corporate tax rate instead of the US's 21%.
2) The additional percentage point goes toward paying down the debt. (It would be a drop in the bucket since so few people earn $400k, but it’s a start.)
Huh. I see we're concerned with the debt again now? Weird.
Now...let’s compromise, people! First, let’s accept that the wealthy pay the majority of federal income taxes, and about half of Americans pay nothing. With that in mind, what about this first step:
1) Raise the top bracket (over $400k) 1 percentage point, from 37 to 38. This would be a mid-point from their drop from 39.6 a few years ago.
2) The additional percentage point goes toward paying down the debt. (It would be a drop in the bucket since so few people earn $400k, but it’s a start.)
Paying down the debt while spending by borrowing aka pay off $10 one credit card while racking up $100 on another
That is the mainstream republican plan.........
How about balancing revenue vs spending, and then start talking about lowering the debt balance?
And the ignorance of mainstream republicans........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
2) Democrats: Give free college, pay off student loans, provide housing subsidies so low-income can live as well as (or better than - take a look at Harris’ rent subsidy proposal!) than the middle class, reparations for black people, health care for illegal aliens, etc.
Now...let’s compromise, people! First, let’s accept that the wealthy pay the majority of federal income taxes, and about half of Americans pay nothing. With that in mind, what about this first step:
1) Raise the top bracket (over $400k) 1 percentage point, from 37 to 38. This would be a mid-point from their drop from 39.6 a few years ago.
2) The additional percentage point goes toward paying down the debt. (It would be a drop in the bucket since so few people earn $400k, but it’s a start.)
I don't think taxation solves the problem. The real problem is that the top earners are getting most of the new income generated and have been since the 1970s. If workers were to get a bigger chunk of the pie then they could take over some of the tax burden currently placed on the high earners.
And I do like Rachel's safety net idea. But I don't think the luxury items that the welfare class obtains are via their government assistance money
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.
) Buffett did with Burger King. It's now owned by Restaurant Brands International (Tim Hortons, etc.), headquartered in Canada, and paying Canada's lower 15% corporate tax rate instead of the US's 21%.
