Would Liberals Accept the Following Tax Increase Proposal (education, government, state)
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.
How about a flat tax that everyone pays regardless of income; say 14%. No capital gains tax on assets held more than 3 years, 5% on 2 years, 10% on 1 year or less. No estate tax.
Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and institute a 20% flat tax with no deductions. Everyone pays their fair share. And by that I mean EVERYONE.
Someone making $8 an hour today shouldn’t have a problem paying 20% if they’re getting $15 going forward.
Your response is so typical. This isn’t an all or nothing situation. It’s a matter of degree.
1) Republicans: provide a basic safety net for those incapable of providing for themselves that would allow them to live in very modest apartments and eat basic food. No extra money to allow for smart phones and expensive sneakers. (If they can afford those things, we are giving them too much free money.)
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.
If #1 was actually true, I think Republicans would still hold the Oval Office and the House.
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.)
1.8% of workers earn more than 400K a year. Amazing the Dems think that raising taxes on that small percentage of workers can pay for 10 trillion dollars of new programs.
1.8% of workers earn more than 400K a year. Amazing the Dems think that raising taxes on that small percentage of workers can pay for 10 trillion dollars of new programs.
They're not good at math.
I've already said numerous times that if Americans want Euro-style social program benefits, they're going to have to pay Euro-style regressive taxes to fund them. None of the "gimme,gimme, GIMME!!!" whiners want to do that.
I invite anyone to look at the following chart to see how other developed countries generate enough tax revenue to fund such programs. They tax either flatly or regressively, NOT progressively as does the US. The mistake the US is making is that progressive taxation depends on generating tax revenue from too few to generate enough tax revenue to fund those programs. So, sorry... we can't have them. Hard truth to swallow.
It would also include everyone's pensions and 401Ks. Their growth in asset value is BASED on capital gains. That would negatively impact the nearly 100 million American workers/retirees who have, in aggregate, $29.1 trillion worth of investments in their pensions and/or retirement accounts. I don't think 100 million Americans would be too happy about having their retirement funds looted by a Congress that simply CANNOT control its spending.
The Medicare tax is already uncapped, but that's because so are Medicare benefits. The SS tax is capped because SS benefits are capped. SS is also already progressive meaning those who contribute the least in SS tax get the greatest return on their contributions, and those who contribute the most get the least return.
Few people realize that most people LOSE money on SS, now. Most will get back in SS benefits less than they've paid in SS taxes.
I believe that 401K's/IRA's are already taxed at withdrawal, not contribution, right? In fact, they are "taxed" at your applicable tax rate, yes?
Now, perhaps you eliminate the required minimum distribution.
As to FICA taxes, you uncap it all, and all these "free college" goodies one side wants, they have to pay for it straight from withholding. Tell Joe Plumber his FICA is going from 7.6% to 14% and he may feel differently.
I've already said numerous times that if Americans want Euro-style social program benefits, they're going to have to pay Euro-style regressive taxes to fund them. None of the "gimme,gimme, GIMME!!!" whiners want to do that.
I invite anyone to look at the following chart to see how other developed countries generate enough tax revenue to fund such programs. They tax either flatly or regressively, NOT progressively as does the US. The mistake the US is making is that progressive taxation depends on generating tax revenue from too few to generate enough tax revenue to fund those programs. So, sorry... we can't have them. Hard truth to swallow.
Yep. There's a reason why conservatives dominate finance & statistics professions.
Liberals like their liberal arts majors and things like that. Music, art, basket weaving, 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 see anything wrong with it. We have enough space for everyone’s need, not everyone’s greed. That’s why I earn 6 figures, but still live in a 800 sqft condo along a lakeside trail with an eco friendly environment, because that’s all is needed to make a young couple happy.
If I can live well within my means and do all I wanted, I’m sure those earning $400K+ can still live happily in smaller homes and still maintain a lifestyle to match their core interests.
Last edited by FrozenI69; 12-04-2020 at 07:49 AM..
Flat tax at 20% or 2.6 trillion. That should be the tax and budget. Run the country on it or find a new job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
I like the concept - but looks like your proposal would fund about half of the government. Updated June 29, 2020 Current U.S. government spending is $4.829 trillion.
$4T is a balanced budget. Suppose Congress said "Flat tax on everything of 30%. We've got to balance the budget."
We'd probably have the 80% or so who were getting a tax increase pretty mad, and insisting on $500B in cuts. Of course, that would just be a 4% tax rate cut, and they'd still be 26%.
But then I'm reminded this is based on the current taxable incomes, not gross income.
We need a little of column A and a little of column B.
The CBO estimates a 20% VAT would earn just $1.2T. If you tack that onto the current federal receipts, you've only got a 0.3T surplus. In order to meet our current funding, you'd have to have about a 75% VAT.
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.
