Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:07 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
StArrow68
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:4,962
Points:1,690,625
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 5:49:07 PM

Why would someone be surprised that the system is set up to be complex? Lawyers create this system to benefit Lawyers, complexity creates disputes and that employs Lawyers. The rich do pay more in taxes and are paying the bill for all those that don't contribute.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 2:47:00 PM

"The real question is should a "rich" person be paying a higher rate of their income in taxes? and the question has been answered with a resounding "YES" for many decades now, and all over the world."

Strange, then, since the 'rich' are still enjoying tax breaks enacting by W...

"“The tax code is so complex and the forms are so complicated, that I know that I cannot have any confidence that I know what is being requested and therefore I cannot and do not know, and I suspect, a great many Americans cannot know, whether or not their tax returns are accurate,” wrote Rumsfeld."

100% agreed. Hence the confusion even within the IRS to evenly enforce said laws.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,202
Points:1,521,695
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:11:22 PM

well, when you have the likes of nick cannon paying $2 million dollars for a pair of shoes and a watch for $500K and all the other stupid stuff like $6,500 baby room rocking chairs and $12,000 stuffed toys - ok ok, so Mariah Carey "earned" this money and they can spend it how they like - but really? Then these hollywood types rant about things that they just buy and toss away?

[Edited by: jdhelm at 4/18/2014 1:11:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:51:38 PM

I75at7AM - "Donald Rumsfeld to IRS: “I have no idea whether our tax returns are accurate”"

I completely agree. The current tax system seems to be set up to benefit tax preparers, and no one else.

When at least 80% of tax returns don't have any information on them that the IRS doesn't already have, what's the point?

Since the IRS collects all this information anyway, it would make a lot more sense for them to calculate everyone's minimum tax liability and send each taxpayer a summary form with a bill or check. Then the taxpayer could submit an amended return if they have additional relevant information.

That would eliminate tax forms and filing completely for 80% or more of taxpayers, and probably reduce government costs. It would also help if Congress would make some fairly simple changes to current tax law (but don't hold your breath).

Of course, there's the question of whether the IRS could manage to put together the necessary computer system. Their track record in that respect isn't good.

"Progressive-rate taxation is the norm. The next question is whether lower income people should pay any tax at all and at what rates. In the USA anyone at poverty level and somewhat above has no federal income tax liability, and in fact might be eligible for a "refund" of somebody else's money."

The point to which is the question of whether or not one should pay taxes on subsistence-level income and whether we should try, at least, to provide more opportunity to those who start out at the bottom of the heap.

Of course, it's still up to them to take advantage of that opportunity, which means that we should not make it comfortable at the bottom.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:48:51 PM

detfan - "Of course Obama would veto this!! Unbelievable!"

Why?

"Again RJhenn, your spin just doesn't work. You continue to be wrong and I continue to be right. It is just because I am for limited government and you are for the Central Collective. It is up to you to correct your political positions, if you want to be correct. That's just the way it is."

IOW, you don't have any actual arguments, just your usual "I'm right and you're wrong".

Fail.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,373
Points:2,764,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:49:34 AM

Obviously a person who has a million dollar income will pay more in taxes that a person with a $25,000 or a $40,000 income. The real question is should a "rich" person be paying a higher rate of their income in taxes? and the question has been answered with a resounding "YES" for many decades now, and all over the world. Progressive-rate taxation is the norm. The next question is whether lower income people should pay any tax at all and at what rates. In the USA anyone at poverty level and somewhat above has no federal income tax liability, and in fact might be eligible for a "refund" of somebody else's money. Low-income people who do work still pay SS and FICA taxes, at the same rate everyone else does, up to the income caps.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,592
Points:343,700
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:22:11 AM

"Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes?"

Most people do. If you agree then you are in the majority.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,373
Points:2,764,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:06:57 AM

On Tax Day, former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld weighed in on paying taxes:

Donald Rumsfeld to IRS: “I have no idea whether our tax returns are accurate”

"Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld penned a scathing letter on Tax Day, Tuesday, to let the Internal Revenue Service know he has no idea how to file his taxes, and he’s been doing it for six decades.

“The tax code is so complex and the forms are so complicated, that I know that I cannot have any confidence that I know what is being requested and therefore I cannot and do not know, and I suspect, a great many Americans cannot know, whether or not their tax returns are accurate,” wrote Rumsfeld."

The full letter can be seen in the link.

Rummy has been in government for decades.
Will anyone in DC listen to him now?
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,625
Points:1,371,430
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 6:31:20 PM

Right on target, Detfan
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,202
Points:1,521,695
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:31:18 PM

Bloomberg should pay 50% Federal and 35% state, and donate the rest to "the poor", then he should go out and get a Mc Donalds burger flipper job for $8 an hour.
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:12:18 PM

Again RJhenn, your spin just doesn't work. You continue to be wrong and I continue to be right. It is just because I am for limited government and you are for the Central Collective. It is up to you to correct your political positions, if you want to be correct. That's just the way it is.

[Edited by: detfan at 4/17/2014 5:13:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:10:24 PM

Of course Obama would veto this!! Unbelievable!

Darden, Publix, SeaWorld support easing Obamacare requirements: Under Obamacare, workers at large companies who put in 30 hours a week are considered full time and must receive health insurance from their employers. But three powerful Central Florida companies — Publix Super Markets, Darden Restaurants and SeaWorld Entertainment — are backing federal legislation to change that standard to 40 hours. The measure, backed by a broad coalition of businesses, passed the U.S. House this month. It faces a difficult road in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and President Barack Obama has said he would veto it. Penalties start next year for employers with 100 or more employees who do not provide insurance for most full-timers under the Affordable Health Care Act.

[Edited by: detfan at 4/17/2014 5:13:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 3:12:45 PM

detfan - "Really not the way to run government."

Well, that much is true.

"Plus Romney wasn't in Washington."

No, he was governor of Massachusetts when RomneyCare, the predecessor to ObamaCare, was implemented.

"By the way the IPAD has been shown to really possibly be a death panel, with their mission to "cut" costs in Medicaire, which means rationing."

Complete BS, based on pure ignorance and political paranoia.

"Hopefully, Obamacare will fail underneath its own weight, or be repealed by a more competent Congress."

Or be replaced with a single-payer health insurance program by a more competent Congress.

"rjhenn, your speculation is just that. You can blather all day long with your ill advised spin, but it doesn't change the fact that your are wrong thinking. Sorry. but, again, as seems to be the case most often. I am right and you are wrong. Your progressive philosophy is wrong for America. That''s all."

Right¡

"The only hope for this country is a far more limited federal government and a return to states rights, as constitutionally mandated. That's just the way it is."

Which is speculation, blather, ill-advised spin and wrong thinking. That's just the way it is.

"I agree Shockjock1961, except even with subsidies, for whatever they are for, the rich should still be taxed less than what is now current, if we are ever going to balance our budget.... It shows they are more supportive of the central collective than a healthy solution for the economic ails of our country."

Apparently, you've never heard of the Laffer Curve, or have no real idea what it means.
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 1:27:31 PM

W, that is so true. There is never enough money for the federal government, especially in the hands of Keynesian policy makers.

(For those of you that are low information voters, the above is not a reference about Obama being born in Kenya.)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 12:47:53 PM

"Perhaps, if the government got rid of all subsidies, then there would be no need to make the rich, or anyone else, pay more in taxes..."

You really think that the government wouldn't spend that money on 'something'? Really?
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 11:30:13 AM

I agree Shockjock1961, except even with subsidies, for whatever they are for, the rich should still be taxed less than what is now current, if we are ever going to balance our budget.

That should get the progressives here all tied up their underwear! LOL

"OMG!!! How can lower taxes create more revenue?"

It shows they are more supportive of the central collective than a healthy solution for the economic ails of our country.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,447
Points:2,514,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 9:57:55 AM

"SUBSIDIES!!!!!!"

I find it amusing when people throw their support for subsidizing things like automobiles, but when it comes to subsidizing health care they treat it like a sacrilege...

Perhaps, if the government got rid of all subsidies, then there would be no need to make the rich, or anyone else, pay more in taxes...
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 7:59:58 AM

rjhenn, your speculation is just that. You can blather all day long with your ill advised spin, but it doesn't change the fact that your are wrong thinking. Sorry. but, again, as seems to be the case most often. I am right and you are wrong. Your progressive philosophy is wrong for America. That''s all.

The only hope for this country is a far more limited federal government and a return to states rights, as constitutionally mandated. That's just the way it is.



[Edited by: detfan at 4/17/2014 8:02:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 7:56:58 AM

W, that is not true, partially. Yes the Republicans always have and always will throw rocks at Obamacare, and I join them in that. However, republicans made several attempts to forward an alternative and were stonewalled all the way. Obamacare was highly partisan derived and written behind closed doors with no public input and voted on just hours after the monstrosity of a document was placed on Members desks. Really not the way to run government. Plus Romney wasn't in Washington.

By the way the IPAD has been shown to really possibly be a death panel, with their mission to "cut" costs in Medicaire, which means rationing.

From out Imperialists's Heath Czar, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Time will tell if IPAD will follow the British and Canadian death model.

Hopefully, Obamacare will fail underneath its own weight, or be repealed by a more competent Congress.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 5:01:24 PM

"However, it is the republicans that called for portability of health care policies, thus all but eliminating the pre existing condition issue. It was the republicans that called for allowing health care companies to compete across state lines, thus providing much needed competition in the marketplace. It was the republicans that, for all excellent common sense rejected any appearance of supporting a federal government takeover of healthcare."

And it was Romney's (R) HC plan that formed the basis of Obamacare. What I was implying earlier however was that when it came time to debate and discuss the Bill, the GOP only threw rocks at it rather than having a sensible debate (remember those Death Panel terms floated out there by the Right?). Had the GOP actually contributed to this specific Bill it would have been far better legislation, IMO. Instead they resisted it trying to make it fail at all costs in an attempt to regain the Oval Office. Why is it OK for a State to have a HC system perceived as good (Mass.), but then not read that system across to the other 49?

There is far too much rhetoric in politics these days for my taste. I was against the Democrats when W was POTUS for their endless campaigning and unfortunately the GOP is now stuck in the same polarizing rut.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 2:50:00 PM

detfan - "rjhenn, I know a guy named Google, that's how."

IOW, your source is some obscure RWNJ website that you're too embarrassed to identify.

Try here.

Then there's "RAND finds that, overall, 9.3 million more U.S. residents have health insurance in 2014 relative to 2013."

Both of those came from plugging your "2 million MORE Americans without healthcare than just one year ago" into Google. Near the top of the first page, too!

"You are totally wrong in trying to say that I am wrong. That's not good or bad, its just the way it is."

Yes, I know. You're always right and anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong.

"SUBSIDIES!!!!!! The progressives answer for higher premiums and inferior health plans!!"

Actually, didn't the "individual mandate" idea, which is what requires the subsidies, originate in a conservative think tank? Real progressives would have insisted on a single-payer system, though probably not for the right reasons.

"You continue to bash the economic engine of this great nation by pointing your figure at employers. Bad call, baby. But that's just the way progressives think."

So you think that workers being underpaid is a formula for economic growth? So who's supposed to buy things if only a relatively few can afford anything besides basic necessities?

"Again, the only answer, especially today, is a smaller, less intrusive federal government, and a larger emphasis on states rights. Period. End of story."

I would agree that the feds, and other levels of government, are somewhat bloated and need to be trimmed back. But that's "trimmed", not attacked with a chainsaw.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/16/2014 2:51:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 1:39:47 PM

Weaslespit, my friend. I know you are left of me, but you cannot say the republicans do not have any health care answers. Yes, it is true that not one republican voted for Obamacare, and I view that as a positive, as the progressives now own it and are about to lose the Senate because of it.

However, it is the republicans that called for portability of health care policies, thus all but eliminating the pre existing condition issue. It was the republicans that called for allowing health care companies to compete across state lines, thus providing much needed competition in the marketplace. It was the republicans that, for all excellent common sense rejected any appearance of supporting a federal government takeover of healthcare.

I'm with them on this. With Obamacare my premium would've jumped from $847 per quarter, to $1,278, and my deductible would've gone from $5,000 to $6,250, and my primary care physician was not included in the marketplace plan. So, I, and thousands of others have bypassed Obamacare altogether and have gone to a company that is exempt from the provisions of Obamacare, with a monthly premium of $165($495 per quarter) and just a $300 deductible. Regardless of what the central collective does to us, there always seems to be a work around, thank God.
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 1:20:04 PM

rjhenn, I know a guy named Google, that's how.

You are totally wrong in trying to say that I am wrong. That's not good or bad, its just the way it is.

SUBSIDIES!!!!!! The progressives answer for higher premiums and inferior health plans!!

You continue to bash the economic engine of this great nation by pointing your figure at employers. Bad call, baby. But that's just the way progressives think.

Again, the only answer, especially today, is a smaller, less intrusive federal government, and a larger emphasis on states rights. Period. End of story.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 12:35:16 PM

detfan - "Today there are over 2 million MORE Americans without healthcare than just one year ago. Big fail. Costs more and you get less, and you are more restricted."

BS. Most of those who lost insurance got better and cheaper (with subsidies) plans.

And where do you get that "over 2 million MORE Americans without healthcare than just one year ago" figure from?

"This is just one issue that progressives have succeeded in, so far, that is destroying our economic base."

What's destroying our economic base is the refusal of employers to pay their employees enough to support the economy. Just as rising gas prices slow the economy because they suck up money from the middle and lower class, so failure to pay enough means the middle and lower class don't have the money to spend in the first place.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/16/2014 12:37:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 12:31:20 PM

"Kind of like destroying our medical care system"

Hyperbole. Can Obamacare be better? Yes. Did the GOP do anything to help make it better - no.

"Actually, I think his point is 5 years of Obamanomics hasn't done diddly squat for the very people he claims to be looking out for."

I agree if this is in reference to his push for an increase in minimum wage and his lateness getting into the game to aid the recovery of the economy.

The bottom line, however is that with the 'current' set-up, the rich should be paying more taxes - a simple return to the levels they were already paying before W...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 12:25:19 PM

Cirdan - "Actually, I think his point is 5 years of Obamanomics hasn't done diddly squat for the very people he claims to be looking out for."

That's not "trickle up economics". "Trickle up economics" would be paying working people more for the work they do, so they've got more to spend, which would energize the economy. That's pretty much out of the control of government.
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 7:12:09 AM

Working harder? Maybe. Working less? Yep. Twenty nine hours is the new employment benchmark. Thanks to the dramatic federal overreach which is Obamacare. I am personally happy that I found a solution outside of Obamacare, but millions have been affected, and millions more will be affected when companies must comply with the central collective. Today there are over 2 million MORE Americans without healthcare than just one year ago. Big fail. Costs more and you get less, and you are more restricted.

This is just one issue that progressives have succeeded in, so far, that is destroying our economic base.

Limited federal government with increased states rights has always been the correct model, both economically and morally. Anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,385
Points:133,205
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 1:14:58 AM

"You realize you just made my point about trickle-down economics being a failure, yes? "

Actually, I think his point is 5 years of Obamanomics hasn't done diddly squat for the very people he claims to be looking out for. Kind of like destroying our medical care system to reach 45 (?) million people without insurance, and then crowing about the "success" of reaching a few million (NOT 7 mil - many of those already had insurance).
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:13:59 PM

nstrdnvstr - "That trickle up has been a big failure, hasn't it?"

What "trickle up"? Look at the figures. The top 0.1% is getting more, while the rest of us are either static or getting less.

And usually working harder.

Wealth can't "trickle up" if most of it's frozen at the top.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/15/2014 1:15:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:20:03 AM

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent."

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earn more in income taxes than the bottom 90 percent...

The sky is also blue ;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:19:07 AM

"We have MORE people on food stamps, less people working, and a very high long term unemployment rate. AND the median wage is still lower than when Obama took office!"

You realize you just made my point about trickle-down economics being a failure, yes?
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,867
Points:1,554,745
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:16:10 AM

No.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,438
Points:3,497,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:02:40 AM

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent."

(source: taxfoundation.org)

[Edited by: SE3.5 at 4/15/2014 9:02:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,373
Points:2,764,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 8:13:31 AM

Rj, it's the thought that counts!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,350
Points:4,314,880
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 6:08:45 AM

Weaslespit, "Trickle-down economics is like a weed - no matter how many times you think you've killed it, it keeps rearing its ugly head!"

That trickle up has been a big failure, hasn't it?

We have MORE people on food stamps, less people working, and a very high long term unemployment rate. AND the median wage is still lower than when Obama took office!

Oh, and gas prices have doubled!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:19:35 PM

I75at7AM - "0bama has proposed 442 tax hikes since taking office."

I wonder how many of those are duplicates.

And how many made it as far as an actual bill.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,373
Points:2,764,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 3:37:55 PM

0bama has proposed 442 tax hikes since taking office.

He sure as heck wants SOMEONE to pay more in taxes, and he promised it wouldn't be the middle class. (He lied, and everyone knows it)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2014 9:31:48 AM

"Well, the trend was downward starting in January of 2008, so it's hard to see how that was BO's fault.

OTOH, the trend didn't bottom out until February of 2010, so he wasn't very effective at fixing things."

I'd say that is the reality of it in as simple of terms as can be stated.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 12:46:04 PM

Well, the trend was downward starting in January of 2008, so it's hard to see how that was BO's fault.

OTOH, the trend didn't bottom out until February of 2010, so he wasn't very effective at fixing things.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:22:39 AM

>>That must be why the unemployment rate was both less, and on a downward trend, before the Shrub tax cuts.<<

Were there more people actually working before or after Obama was sworn in?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 10:39:12 AM

"I think that's a bit too simple. I'd say the exemption should be more like: $20,000 for a single, $40,000 for a married couple, plus $5,000 for each of the first two children, $4,000 for the next child and dropping by $1,000 for each additional. Simple, but more 'fair'."

Certainly there are details that could be discussed with regards to threshold levels to fine-tune airfresh's example. I am not opposed to what you have suggested, it also seems to be fair and takes into account a common sense approach yet is still simple to follow.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 4:44:20 PM

Weaslespit, quoting airfresh - "I've said this before in this topic... I would even build in a relatively high bottom exemption to accommodate low incomes. Incomes below $48K. If you make $50K you pay on $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay on $952,000. Fair AND progressive."

I think that's a bit too simple. I'd say the exemption should be more like: $20,000 for a single, $40,000 for a married couple, plus $5,000 for each of the first two children, $4,000 for the next child and dropping by $1,000 for each additional. Simple, but more 'fair'.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,537,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 4:39:47 PM

SoylentGrain - "Also, you can't argue that more people were employed in the previous decade than now. Tax rates matter. The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth."

That must be why the unemployment rate was both less, and on a downward trend, before the Shrub tax cuts.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 12:50:09 PM

Going back to arifresh's example - still the best, most common sense combination I have seen to-date;

"Want fair and equitable? Create a flat tax, lower the rate for all, abolish the IRS, abolish the tax code, and everyone pays the same rate. The rich still pay more they just won't have all the dodges built into the code.

I've said this before in this topic... I would even build in a relatively high bottom exemption to accommodate low incomes. Incomes below $48K. If you make $50K you pay on $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay on $952,000. Fair AND progressive."
Profile Pic
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,377
Points:802,585
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:35:14 AM


The "Fair" proposal hasn't come close to being passed, though you declare that it solves the politics and math of tax-cutting. Reality directly contradicts your claim.





Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,373
Points:2,764,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:17:22 AM

"The math of tax-cutting can be complicated and the politics of it can be even more complex."

The FairTax solves it all.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:44:00 AM

"The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth."

Trickle-down economics is like a weed - no matter how many times you think you've killed it, it keeps rearing its ugly head!
Profile Pic
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,377
Points:802,585
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:42:06 AM


The math of tax-cutting can be complicated and the politics of it can be even more complex.

Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,113
Points:1,526,585
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:07:24 AM

They already do.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 6:47:08 AM

"Shrub already tried that. It did NOT "help everyone", just a few. "

The largest tax reductions were at the bottom end of the tax schedule. Also, you can't argue that more people were employed in the previous decade than now. Tax rates matter. The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth.
Post a reply Back to Topics