• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For the sake of conversation and real life dollars and sense let's bring tax rates back to 1955 levels.....

Deuce said:
@vanceen you can tax rich people more and still have rich people, hope this helps
Click to expand...

Read the post I was replying to. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Ok, and?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...
In lower income levels you run into a blood from a stone problem.
 
Deuce said:
In lower income levels you run into a blood from a stone problem.
Click to expand...

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).

www.kiplinger.com

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 www.kiplinger.com
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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).

www.kiplinger.com

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 www.kiplinger.com
Click to expand...
Ok but the result is not actually generating more tax revenue from those people you wanted to draw tax revenue from.
 
Deuce said:
Ok but the result is not actually generating more tax revenue from those people you wanted to draw tax revenue from.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but you be you.
 
element94 said:
Cost of living increases are actually demanded profit levels. Every one-percenter deserves the Downton Abbey lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Which lifestyle are you speaking of?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you expect the president not to represent the will of their electorate?
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes this definitely seems like a fair approach. I could subscribe.
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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......
 
Ahhhhh. The 50s. The grand era for Conservatives.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Make all elected positions time limited, like the presidency. No more career pols.
Click to expand...
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.

1. Replace every house incumbent every election period or every other election period

2. Replace every senate incumbent every election period.

3. Get the issue placed on ballot and let voters decide. After all it is our government.
 
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
 
Chillfolks said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I would keep (and raise the amount of) a truly standard deduction, leaving folks a basic income free from federal income taxation.
Click to expand...
Once the dust settles and the citizenry realizes what a scam they have been subjected to that could be party of the solution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
vanceen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That and $10K in itemized deductions gets a $2.5K federal subsidy for someone with income in the 25% tax bracket and a (40%) larger $3.5K federal subsidy for someone with income in the 35% tax bracket. Giving larger federal subsidies to those with higher incomes makes no sense at all.
 
Razoo said:
Yes this definitely seems like a fair approach. I could subscribe.
Click to expand...

There's a mistake in my post. I said it LBJ's economic team who recommended the tax cuts, but it was JFK's. LBJ got them passed.
 
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......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom