- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,280
- Reaction score
- 10,584
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So does that change in any way your previous belief about the tax ideas of today's Dem and Kennedy Dems?Thanks. Kind of you.
So does that change in any way your previous belief about the tax ideas of today's Dem and Kennedy Dems?Thanks. Kind of you.
Really, please tell me what I have and haven't earned as far as wealth and site specific examples.
That certainly is not what I took from some of your posts.
In any case, the same across the board is not happening. Neither side will agree to that it seems and it is not coming any time soon. While the buffet rule is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
Obviously, he would not join the GOP now. They were good with 70% top marginal rate then. Now you guys are talking about 15%.Didn't like my analysis? JFK is probably rolling in his grave; hell he'd probably sign up as a Repub. :2razz:
Really, please tell me what I have and haven't earned as far as wealth and site specific examples.
o, you are afforded more opportunities because of your status. That's fact.
good, then by all means, give up everything you have and start over. Oh wait, you wouldn't do that because you know your comments are BS and don't amount to anything but hot air.
Your a liberal. Liberal = poor and on welfare. I thought you knew that.
Its a step towards further stupidity. The Bush Tax Cuts lowered everyone's rate about the same, except where folks who weren't paying much could only go so far to get to zero income tax.
Now you want to raise it back up, but just on the top group. And you call it "fair". :thumbdown
47% pay no federal income tax. And like you, they want to vote themselves even more largesse of the Treasury.
Go back. Look really really hard and show me where I said I want to raise taxes on one group. When you give up please do admit you are wrong. I'll be here waiting.
Of course we need to raise taxes on the top bracket only. They are the ones that don't spend all their income. Turtledude SAVES 80% of his yearly income for a rainy day. That is hurting our consumer economy that depends on SPENDING to grow and prosper. Taking more from those that already spend all they make is self defeating since that extra tax will come directly out of their spending, lowering GDP by the same amount we tax. Raising taxes on anyone but the top bracket is economic suicide.
I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
So charge everyone a flat rate. 15% gets you about 1.3 trillion straight up revenue.
Thats what I have been saying for years and multiple times in this thread.
That only allows a widening of wealth inequality. That creates a huge number of societal problems, no modern state does this.I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
Well then lets get this thing done. Call your Congressman.
Ah, yes, the proverbial roadblock.
That only allows a widening of wealth inequality. That creates a huge number of societal problems, no modern state does this.
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.Just because no modern states do it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. It would generate massive amounts of income for our country, and would be fair to everyone in the country. I don't see the down side to it.
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.
When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
Oh, you equate "cause" with "cure".Yeah, those two events fixed the wealth inequality problem. :rofl
Go back. Look really really hard and show me where I said I want to raise taxes on one group. When you give up please do admit you are wrong. I'll be here waiting.
....... In any case, the same across the board is not happening. Neither side will agree to that it seems and it is not coming any time soon. While the buffet rule is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
Yeah, those two events fixed the wealth inequality problem. :rofl
I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
Just because no modern states do it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. It would generate massive amounts of income for our country, and would be fair to everyone in the country. I don't see the down side to it.
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.
When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
Creating a flat tax does not cause any wealth inequality. If anything it does the exact opposite.
Every version a flat tax that I've seen includes a personal exemption, which would keep many of those who currently don't pay FIT from paying under a flat tax, and of course it would result in different rates.
If you don't have an exemption then a flat tax is simply unfair. It fails to capture the distinction between income necessary for basic survival and disposable income. In effect it results in middle class disposable income being taxed at a rate in the high 80s or 90s, versus the low 20s for wealthier individuals.
In other words, it's sort of like taxing a corporation on gross revenue rather than net profits.