- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Read
Six Months to Go Until<br> The Largest Tax Hikes in History
now tell me, is this link wrong? I remember certain folks saying that this administration was not raising taxes.
Is this another campaign promise broken?
How in this near depression can you afford this?
...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?
(this belongs in the partisan forum)
Bush's tax cuts were temporary. They're expiring. Saying this is the Obama administration "raising taxes" is incredibly disingenuous. Those tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to our debt, because they're funded entirely by borrowing money.
Also, you guys have been (incorrectly) calling Cap and Trade the "largest tax increase in history." Which is it?
I think that we could put the tax rate at pre-Reagan rate of 70% and clear up some of this debt/deficit whatever it is and not miss a beat. :rock
We can't afford to be shovelling money over to the uberwealthy. We owe $11 trillion already... Enough is enough. They have plenty already, they don't need us borrowing ourselves into oblivion to give them outrageous tax cuts. The main sources of income for the uberwealthy- inheritance and capital gains- are hardly taxed at all under the Bush plan. We need to restore the estate tax and raise capital gains tax brackets to match income tax brackets, not look for ways to prolong the plundering of the federal coffers by the uberwealthy...
so, the tax rates will be returning to what they were before the dicknbush windfall for the wealthy
which tax provisions does the OP find objectionable and why?
and which is of greater concern, the accumulation of a larger federal deficit or the levy of taxes upon those who can afford it?
a windfall for the wealthy would be the top 1% (who make 22% of the income) paying less than 22% of the income taxes. As long as that top 1% pay more of the income tax than their share of the income they have no windfall
the real windfall are the 47% who pay no income taxes yet have the same say-vote wise-as Bill Gates when it comes to elections
a windfall for the wealthy would be the top 1% (who make 22% of the income) paying less than 22% of the income taxes. As long as that top 1% pay more of the income tax than their share of the income they have no windfall
the real windfall are the 47% who pay no income taxes yet have the same say-vote wise-as Bill Gates when it comes to elections
It never ceases to amaze me just how much importance conservatives put on money. "I make more money that means I should get more voting power because I'm more important!"
Well, if you want to talk about fairness, how fair is it that those top 1% don't have to do any labor and can live off only corporate dividends while the 47% who make no income tax have to work at least 40 hours a week usually at minimum wage jobs in which they are very prone to abuse from their employers and management?
I think it evens out a bit.
You are talking out of your butt with such a generalization
the top 1% is anyone making more than about 350K a year. Many of those people work very hard-surgeons, top accountants, good attorneys small business owners. Libs love to point to a Paris Hilton to serve as an example to the people who averaged 60 billable hours a week for 10 years at big corporate law firms or accounting firms or someone who made top grades for 16 years to get into a top residency at a major league hospital where they pull 35 hour shifts.
life isn't fair but screaming that those who are skilled and valuable have some duty to be soaked to make the untalented and unproductive feel better is complete crap
Pot, meet kettle.
I am quite aware that there are white collar professionals who work very hard and earn their wealth. However, those aren't the top 1%. Most of those surgeons, accountants, lawyers, and small business owners are in the upper class or upper-middle class. They deserve to pay their share of progressive taxes, but currently they, too, are getting screwed more by the superwealthy who are benefiting from the tax cuts than from the poor who aren't paying income taxes.
It is those superwealthy who can easily afford taxes that most liberals want to target to ease the burden on the upper class and upper-middle class professionals who can't take the burden as well. Also, by taxing more of the superwealthy, we increase income mobility and social mobility to the upper class and middle class.
If you were truthful then dems would only be targeting those making say well over ten million a year and targeting estates of more than 50 million a year
libs love using people like Bill Gates to rape someone who makes 300K a year
In my opinion, and I differ from most Democrats here, the rate on the current top income tax bracket is already high enough. What I would do is a couple of things. First I would make an ubertop income tax bracket that starts at $1 m per year and I would set that rate just a bit higher than the current top bracket. Say to 43% or so.
Then I would get rid of the capital gains tax exemptions that are costing us such insane amounts of money to offer. I would tax income made through investment as regular income, the same way wages are taxed. I see no justification for taxing work more heavily than investing.
Do those two things and we would have a surplus sufficient to start paying down the debt. Once the debt is paid off and we have say a couple trillion in the bank for a rainy day, then I would drop all the income tax brackets down slowly until we achieved a balanced budget.
That level of wealth is precisely the level that I want to target.
In my opinion, and I differ from most Democrats here, the rate on the current top income tax bracket is already high enough. What I would do is a couple of things. First I would make an ubertop income tax bracket that starts at $1 m per year and I would set that rate just a bit higher than the current top bracket. Say to 43% or so.
Then I would get rid of the capital gains tax exemptions that are costing us such insane amounts of money to offer. I would tax income made through investment as regular income, the same way wages are taxed. I see no justification for taxing work more heavily than investing.
Do those two things and we would have a surplus sufficient to start paying down the debt. Once the debt is paid off and we have say a couple trillion in the bank for a rainy day, then I would drop all the income tax brackets down slowly until we achieved a balanced budget.
Well, another reform I would do is a minimum income tax - everybody who files their income tax has to pay a minimum amount of money, no matter the exemptions they qualify for or their income bracket. Put it at a small amount of money, say $100, and that very little bit will go a long way to paying off the debt.
Well, another reform I would do is a minimum income tax - everybody who files their income tax has to pay a minimum amount of money, no matter the exemptions they qualify for or their income bracket. Put it at a small amount of money, say $100, and that very little bit will go a long way to paying off the debt.
There are about 110 million people who make income in the US. Assuming you mean only income taxes (everybody pays sales and payroll taxes and whatnot), then about 50 million of them pay no income tax. At $100 a piece that would only mean $5 billion a year. That may sound like a lot, but on the scale of the federal budget it is not. That would pay for two days of the wars for example. So, that would help, but I wouldn't say it would go a "long way".
But, the negative impact that even $100 would have, for example on people who work minimum wage jobs and support a family, could be significant. Lots of people would literally need to save up and cut corners for a couple months to get together an extra $100. We have about 45 million people who are classified as "food insecure" in the US, which means that at least once a year they had to go without food for a day or longer purely because they could not afford it. That's an environment where $100 can have a pretty big impact.
But, that said, it's not a terrible idea. If it would make more people feel comfortable that the system was fair, and if we accompanied it with the ideas I suggested, I'd support it.
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?