How does a 70% tax bracket for high incomes sound. It seems the dumb-ocrats think a $trillion budget deficit can be closed by taxing the income of a handful of "rich" people. A 100% rate wouldn't balance the budget as the combined annual income of these "rich" people is no where near $trillion. IF we are going to balance the budget AND reduce the debt modest tax increases will be required, but 70% isn't just a job killer, it's an economy killer.

Why 70% tax rates won't work

When you're talking about tax hikes like this, I'm betting that rich people who never got deeply involved in politics will begin using their wealth to vote out those that would this and and spend money on electing politicians to over turn it. Don't f*ck with rich people I always say..

We have seen 70% tax rates before. It was in the 70's under Jimmy Carter. And we know how that ended up.

Liberals have tried to rewrite history on Reagan, but the fact is his economic policies are needed right now. Cut taxes, cut regulations. 17 million NEW jobs were created under Reagan. His policy is a direct opposite of what Obama has done, and we see what the result has been.

Obama is a total failure. But one thing he has done is shown, once again, why Reagan's economic policy was the right one.

(06-17-2011 09:18 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  We have seen 70% tax rates before. It was in the 70's under Jimmy Carter. And we know how that ended up.

Liberals have tried to rewrite history on Reagan, but the fact is his economic policies are needed right now. Cut taxes, cut regulations. 17 million NEW jobs were created under Reagan. His policy is a direct opposite of what Obama has done, and we see what the result has been.

Obama is a total failure. But one thing he has done is shown, once again, why Reagan's economic policy was the right one.

Reagan's policy was to cut taxes and increase spending. I don't think anyone wants the US to increase spending right now.

(06-17-2011 09:20 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-17-2011 09:18 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  We have seen 70% tax rates before. It was in the 70's under Jimmy Carter. And we know how that ended up.

Liberals have tried to rewrite history on Reagan, but the fact is his economic policies are needed right now. Cut taxes, cut regulations. 17 million NEW jobs were created under Reagan. His policy is a direct opposite of what Obama has done, and we see what the result has been.

Obama is a total failure. But one thing he has done is shown, once again, why Reagan's economic policy was the right one.

Reagan's policy was to cut taxes and increase spending. I don't think anyone wants the US to increase spending right now.

We could afford to increase spending because the economy was booming.

That being said I'm not saying increase spending. We have to cut spending dramtically. But if you want to get the economy going again so that tax revenues will increase, you have decrease the tax burden and get rid of burdensome regulation.

17 million new jobs under Reagan. That's a fact of history and proof positive that cutting taxes works.

Flat tax is the way to go. 20%, first 46k is exempt and then hold tight as the economy sky rockets.

It's almost as though some/many don't want the economy to sky rocket.

(06-17-2011 09:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It's almost as though some/many don't want the economy to sky rocket.

According to Robert it's the evil corporate billionairs who are sitting on trillions because they don't want Obama reelected. Which, of course, makes perfect sense.

I still think no income tax is the way to go... consumption tax. I also have no issue with a 15% corporate tax rate with no deductions, which many economists are calling for.

(06-17-2011 09:55 AM)mlb Wrote:  I still think no income tax is the way to go... consumption tax. I also have no issue with a 15% corporate tax rate with no deductions, which many economists are calling for.

You mean a 15% consumer tax. ...as that's all a corporate tax is, but with a greater negative economic impact.

No, I am referring to the fair tax. But since it isn't going to come about, I'd accept lowering our corporate tax to a flat 15%, no deductions.

I am a fan of abolishing all income taxes and creating a consumption tax. I'd exempt food (only unprepared for cooking at home), clothing and shelter from the consumption tax. This should not disproportionately affect the poor by exempting basic necessities while encouraging the population to focus more on saving.

(06-17-2011 10:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am a fan of abolishing all income taxes and creating a consumption tax. I'd exempt food (only unprepared for cooking at home), clothing and shelter from the consumption tax. This should not disproportionately affect the poor by exempting basic necessities while encouraging the population to focus more on saving.

I wouldn't. As for the poor, that's what the prebate is for.

(06-17-2011 10:27 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I wouldn't. As for the poor, that's what the prebate is for.

Not all consumption taxes have the prebate... only the fair tax does that I've seen.

(06-17-2011 10:27 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-17-2011 10:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am a fan of abolishing all income taxes and creating a consumption tax. I'd exempt food (only unprepared for cooking at home), clothing and shelter from the consumption tax. This should not disproportionately affect the poor by exempting basic necessities while encouraging the population to focus more on saving.

I wouldn't. As for the poor, that's what the prebate is for.

I think the prebate overly complicates the tax rules. Granted, the fair tax concept is MUCH simpler than today's tax code, but why inject a prebate in the first place? The tax code should be based entirely on a "pay as you go" system. Then you don't have to worry about getting a rebate or owing tax the following year in Q1. The prebate sounds seductive, but then I can see politicians being able to play games with it down the road. Never underestimate the power of a politician to corrupt an otherwise honest system. Pay as you go all the way.

I am for charging for services rendered to foreigners. It could be some sort of negotiated tax or tariff. If Mexican or any foreigners come to this country and cannot afford what they need, their country of origin should be charged for services rendered to their nationals. Schools, health care, food stamps, welfare the whole nine yards. If they come here and cannot support themselves, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay.

(06-17-2011 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  No, I am referring to the fair tax. But since it isn't going to come about, I'd accept lowering our corporate tax to a flat 15%, no deductions.

Why tax a business on earnings at all, IF, it re-invests them in US based operations? Instead of taxing business then offering incentives to invest, tax the distribution of earnings in the form of individual income taxes. Tax US earnings of corporations only where they are used in non-US based investments.

(06-17-2011 10:39 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think the prebate overly complicates the tax rules. Granted, the fair tax concept is MUCH simpler than today's tax code, but why inject a prebate in the first place? The tax code should be based entirely on a "pay as you go" system. Then you don't have to worry about getting a rebate or owing tax the following year in Q1. The prebate sounds seductive, but then I can see politicians being able to play games with it down the road. Never underestimate the power of a politician to corrupt an otherwise honest system. Pay as you go all the way.

I don't see how a "one-size fits all" prebate complicates anything. It's not set to individual standards, but to the current level of poverty. Bill Gates would get a prebate as would someone in the trailer park. As for taxing the poor, can someone please explain to me why the poor should be exempt? They don't use the same services? Besides, is it their mission in life to remain poor? Wouldn't they want a better job and opportunities? That's where removing ALL tax burdens to companies comes to play. Companies WILL grow and expand if they don't have any tax liabilities. If they know they're permanent, and can only be taxed if a law is passed which impacts every single person in the nation, ...which would never happen as you can't get two people to agree to what the correct color of the sky is, they'll relocate back to the stability of the states.

Then again, you'll always have people that want to sit in their apartments and *****, and hell no they aren't going to do anything themselves to pick themselves up because it's easier just to sit on their ass, in their apartment, and ***** about what others have.

(06-17-2011 11:54 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-17-2011 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  No, I am referring to the fair tax. But since it isn't going to come about, I'd accept lowering our corporate tax to a flat 15%, no deductions.

Why tax a business on earnings at all, IF, it re-invests them in US based operations? Instead of taxing business then offering incentives to invest, tax the distribution of earnings in the form of individual income taxes. Tax US earnings of corporations only where they are used in non-US based investments.

I suspect that is where we are heading... I still think a consumption tax is the best option. That way everyone who wants to do business here pays it (taxes on office supplies, etc.) and everyone who lives here pays it. I understand that it only passes on the cost of the tax within the price of goods and services, but at the end of the day I think it is the most "fair" way of taxing. Nobody can skip through loopholes, and since the United States market is still the number 1 market every company wants to be in we won't be bypassed.

(06-16-2011 08:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  When you're talking about tax hikes like this, I'm betting that rich people who never got deeply involved in politics will begin using their wealth to vote out those that would this and and spend money on electing politicians to over turn it. Don't f*ck with rich people I always say..

This is what the Supreme Court rulling had in mind.