- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 5,911
- Reaction score
- 2,560
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
@vanceen you can tax rich people more and still have rich people, hope this helps
Big money out of politics is very important, but likely the only way we can do it is by raising taxes on the rich to reduce the money they have to put in politics.
@vanceen you can tax rich people more and still have rich people, hope this helps
Ok, and?That true for raising the bracket rate on any income level.
Ok, and?
In lower income levels you run into a blood from a stone problem.You would get more revenue by raising all income tax bracket rates a little than by raising the upper bracket rate a lot. The problem, of course, is that by doing so you would upset more of the electorate.
In lower income levels you run into a blood from a stone problem.
Ok but the result is not actually generating more tax revenue from those people you wanted to draw tax revenue from.Nope, that’s what having the ‘standard deduction’ should prevent. IMHO, the standard deduction amount should be much higher than it is and be made truly standard (i.e. not based on marital status or having dependents).
What's the Standard Deduction for 2025? Changes You Need to Know
Most people claim the standard deduction on their federal tax return instead of itemizing deductions. How much can you claim?www.kiplinger.com
Ok but the result is not actually generating more tax revenue from those people you wanted to draw tax revenue from.
Which lifestyle are you speaking of?Cost of living increases are actually demanded profit levels. Every one-percenter deserves the Downton Abbey lifestyle.
That seems to assume that a term limited politician would be more apt (rather than less apt) to represent the will of their electorate. I find that assumption to be doubtful, at best.
Yes this definitely seems like a fair approach. I could subscribe.From FDR to LBJ, there were rates put in place to reduce inequality and kept there to pay for WWII. But LBJ's good economic team suggested the economy would do better with somewhat lower rates, reducing the top rate IIRC from 91% to 74%. I'd say go with the JFK rates, which LBJ got passed and were in place until Reagan.
Let's remove all special interest features aka welfare for the 1% that does not payback nor finds its' way back into the economy...... that Reagan/Bush entered, Bush/Quale entered, Bush/Cheney entered and Rump/Pence entered as well......From FDR to LBJ, there were rates put in place to reduce inequality and kept there to pay for WWII. But LBJ's good economic team suggested the economy would do better with somewhat lower rates, reducing the top rate IIRC from 91% to 74%. I'd say go with the JFK rates, which LBJ got passed and were in place until Reagan.
This will always be tough because too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are resistant. However there are three ways this can be done.Make all elected positions time limited, like the presidency. No more career pols.
So you expect the president not to represent the will of their electorate?
Do away with all tax credits and loopholes for everyone. Once people start to see what their true “fair share” is without the shell game then we can start to see change
Most Americans dont even understand marginal rates. They think all of their income is taxed in their highest bracket instead of the income only in that bracket. GOP would have a field day with this ignorance.There is no reason to go back to those rates, not that long after 1956 (as in within a decade or so) the tax code became bloated with means to deal with how and why the Presidents (and associated Congresses) FDR, up through Truman, and arguably to Eisenhower looked at taxation. And that trend continued up to today.
But more importantly, economics and our system of money does not equal conditions in 1956.
Taxation then was about funding government, today's understanding of taxation is about dealing with economic impacting excess (which is to say dealing with bubble and pop economic consequences.)
You can achieve dealing with that by addressing all the insanity in the code, then alter the tax bracket system slightly to ensure less is pooled at the very top percent of the top percent. At this point, we do not even have economic reason to look at high taxation of $1M salaries. Into the 9th figure (as in $100M + salaries) is another matter and the reasons for that are obvious.
Proposing 1956 taxation rates today, with no other context, is borderline insanity.
Once the dust settles and the citizenry realizes what a scam they have been subjected to that could be party of the solution.I would keep (and raise the amount of) a truly standard deduction, leaving folks a basic income free from federal income taxation.
I would keep (and raise the amount of) a truly standard deduction, leaving folks a basic income free from federal income taxation. Getting rid of the (social engineering?) nonsense based on how or upon who one’s income was later spent makes sense.
I agree with this.
The purpose of taxation should be to fund the government and its necessary programs. Using it to "encourage" this or "discourage" that almost always backfires, and simply gives clever people a way to avoid taxes.
Yes this definitely seems like a fair approach. I could subscribe.
You understand that there were a ton of loopholes in the tax code at that time and that people actually only paid a few % higher than what we pay now, right?
you don't know that....... you are assuming.You understand that there were a ton of loopholes in the tax code at that time and that people actually only paid a few % higher than what we pay now, right?
Biden should promise those tax rates when he runs in 2024! Might get 10 % of the vote if he does!!!!. LAFFRIOT!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?