is there any limit to what the top 1% should have to pay in your mind. MOre than a quarter is confiscatory in my mind and right now lots of people pay close to half their income in taxes once you figure in state, local, and federal taxes. If you leave more than a million than you end paying even more
I don't trust dem politicians to stop at a certain point if they think they can buy the votes of the minions
the income tax and the death tax never would have even received 15% support if the current numbers were contemplated when those taxes were passed.
You are addressing 2 different subjects in your post, government spending, whether to have a progressive vs a regressive tax system.
Government spending is not a function of the type of tax system we have.
This can be easily demonstrated by our history when we had much higher taxes and much lower debt.
Spending is determined on priorities of the electorate (we the people) and their representatives they vote into office.
You are addressing 2 different subjects in your post, government spending, whether to have a progressive vs a regressive tax system.
Government spending is not a function of the type of tax system we have.
This can be easily demonstrated by our history when we had much higher taxes and much lower debt.
Spending is determined on priorities of the electorate (we the people) and their representatives they vote into office.
true but you do understand it is legitimate to criticize a system where those who pay no taxes have an equal ability to vote up the tax rates of those who do
you do understand that there are good faith arguments against progressive taxes that have nothing to do with economics per se and there are some people who think that individuals should not be pawns of whatever the majority considers the greater good or their greater good.
In Europe they don't have an infinite progression like you are talking about, so it is a straw man to say that progressive taxation will lead to that in America.
Do you have any example on your side? I don't think so, which is why your fear is just a speculation.
From my point of view, this doesn't really have anything to do with the poor. The tax situation for the poor has not really changed much though any of our tax changes. The poop pay little to no taxes, and never have, because it it understood they have little to no money to pay taxes. If they did, they would not be poor.
The real battle is between the upper and middle classes, and due to the massive tax cuts on the wealthiest this has forced more of the tax burden to the middle class, pushing more and more of them into the lower class and creating more and more debt that is not covered by the tax revenues.
Just as there are many people that feel we should not be subsidizing corporations, or unfunded wars to make the middle east safe for big oil.
The spending priorities are a completely different issue than what type of tax system is best.
The issue with progressive vs regressive taxes is do we increase taxes on on the top tax brackets proportional to their wealth as our system was designed by our forefathers, or do we continue to make it more regressive where the wealthy pay a lesser share of their wealth than the middle class.
basing what has happened in europe is fine with me
the next time some gun hater claims we are paranoid to think dems want to ban handguns I will just point to England.
but thanks for your evasion--I asked at what point is too much and you ignored it
and you forget dems once imposed 90% rates-we don't need to look to europe to see the pathetic parasitism of the left here
Right you are, I agree with you that bad social policies in America could lead to even worse social policies because of Europe. But if we are going to use European nations as examples of what American policies could be, then we should agree on how the same thing can't happen with fiscal policy because it hasn't happened anywhere in Europe.
Great to get an agreement on that.
But I think whatever tax rate under Clinton is fine, he is cool. so what?
and it was HOOVER who instigated the 90% income tax rates, not any Democrat.
really? Mbig's post said that didn't happen until well after HOover was gone
BTW in many cases those huge rates didn't hit nearly as many people as the proposed Obama tax hikes will. No I cannot cite the source right now but I have heard several say the effective tax rate on the top 1%-based on the proposed obama hikes would be the highest effective rate in history due to all the ways people were able to avoid that confiscatory rate 50years ago
I find it interesting you paen the tax hiking dems and ignore the founders
right now the tax system is the most skewed it has ever been with the rich paying the higher percentage of the total bill even though the rates are lower.
its beause the Bush tax adjustments sadly knocked lots of people off the income tax.
I think we need a system where everyone suffers when taxes are increased.
I agree with you that some taxation like that should be avoided, which is why I support Clinton's tax rate. If Obama wants to go above what there was under Clinton, then I would oppose that.
Yeah you are right, Hoover increased income taxes to 63% on top earners, and it only reached 90% during WWII. FDR first raised taxes in 1933 to 73%, but the largest increase was during WWII.
Either way, Hoover increased it drastically.
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2010
I don't know what you mean there. Clarify please.
No it was skewed the most when tax rates were 92% for the the top tax bracket. We are but a fraction of that now.
Perhaps it would be cheaper to build poor houses, or increase welfare? How do you get blood out of a turnip?
I think being poor, is suffering enough! If you wish to trade places with the poor, I am sure you will find takers!
I oppose policies that are designed to keep people poor or expand the amount of people dependent on the government.
That ... is like the definition of American capitalism.
That ... is like the definition of American capitalism.
its an interesting thing about progressive taxation... even though i support them because it gives more income to poorer individuals, it also gives a dis-sentive for someone to increase their income because their tax rate will increase the more they make.
I care less about the disincentive for the rich because they are already rich
Regressive taxation sucks, but it gives an incentive for people to increase their income to pay at a lower tax rate
the rate of progresstivity is at its highest since less people are paying income taxes now in terms of percentages.
I oppose policies that are designed to keep people poor or expand the amount of people dependent on the government. current dem policies do that IMHO
my main reason for opposing progressive rates is to prevent the vote buying and the power it gives congress.
how does progressive income tax give the poor more income
just curious. through income redistribution which is not necessarily a component for Prog income taxes or by lessening their tax burden?
the other point is interesting
my main reason for opposing progressive rates is to prevent the vote buying and the power it gives congress.
Progressive taxes are designed to be proportional to wealth, to prevent the regressive situation we are in today where 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.
Than your position is counter productive to your goal, because the more wealth you take from people, the more you make them dependent on the government.
It was why the progressive tax was created in the first place and why we have a middle class now which is slowly deteriorating due to the shift in tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle class.
Progressive taxes are designed to be proportional to wealth, to prevent the regressive situation we are in today where 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.
Than your position is counter productive to your goal, because the more wealth you take from people, the more you make them dependent on the government.
It was why the progressive tax was created in the first place and why we have a middle class now which is slowly deteriorating due to the shift in tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle class.
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?