Reply to What really needs to be fixed in the tax code?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What really needs to be fixed in the tax code?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. [b]At 250K, it should be 99%[/b]. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country. [/quote]

So why work hard?   What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?[/quote]
Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.[/quote]

One reason this is so hard to discuss is people are stupid and don't understand the terms they use. The 90% poster is not a socialist. A confiscatory tax rate is not socialism. Socialism means that governments own the means of production. George W. Bush engaged in socialism when he nationalized the banks in the bailout -- that was the last time we had socialism in this country. But that had nothing to do with tax rates.[/quote]
It doesn't matter if the label is wrong - it's the underlying concept we are discussing (massive income redistribution), and the objections remain the same. The "socialist" poster wants to take virtually all income from even moderately successful people ($75k) in order to provide more free stuff to lower-income people so that all people, high school dropouts and college-educated professionals, live the same "sustainable" albeit modest lifestyle. What got my ire up is that he calls anyone who disagrees with this confiscatory tax rate a "criminal."

As I said upthread, I am scared to death that people like the deluded "socialist" poster will be elected (there are no shortage of "gimme" and/or similarly deluded voters), and our country will go the way of Greece.[/quote]

pp here. I agree that a confiscatory tax policy is stupid. however, I will also say it was a lot easier to do tax "reform" in the 1980s because the rates were a lot higher before. it's easy to bring down rates from the 70s and 80s to the 30s by broadening the base than it is to lower rates already in the 30s. ini my view, the only real way to achieve tax "reform" would be to create a VAT or something and lower income tax rates even further. [/quote]
Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop. [/quote]

You can't get blood from a stone.

The people that you think "pay no taxes" are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford their living expenses, let alone additional taxes.  We should have appropriate incentivization either through tax penalties or other mechanisms to get employers to pay living wages.  And THEN you can think about collecting more taxes from those people you think are deadbeats.[/quote]
Oh-oh. We have another liberal here with no clue as  to how business works. You want to demand that a company pay $30,000 a year (so a couple would earn $60,000 - more than the current HHI average)? Even if they are barely literate with skills that have practically no market value? Then watch the jobs be replaced with automation. I walked into McDonald's yesterday and there was a kiosk for ordering. NO cashiers. The company knows it doesn't take any great ability to press a few keys and swipe your CC, so rather than have to pay a minimally skilled employee to do it, they're having their customers do it for free. Raise the minimum, and the pattern will be even more widespread - so more people out of work, and more people totally dependent on government.

And.....liberals ALWAYS come up with an insult, and in this case I mean your remark about my considering working poor deadbeats. I SAID the really low-income are excused from pitching in. But the lower middle-class can pay a token amount of federal income tax. I'm talking like $100 or $200  for the year. We cannot survive when half the country is supporting the other half, and we need to move more people onto the taxpayer base.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics