View Poll Results: Which do you prefer:

Voters
197. You may not vote on this poll
  • Income tax - no changes in the status quo

    39 19.80%
  • Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

    67 34.01%
  • National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

    47 23.86%
  • No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

    10 5.08%
  • Other - explain

    21 10.66%
  • Cookies!

    13 6.60%
Page 77 of 90 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 899

Thread: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

  1. #761
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,608

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    anyone who thinks the poor in the USA have it as bad as those in most of africa, north Korea, India, or south america is delusional



  2. #762
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    anyone who thinks the poor in the USA have it as bad as those in most of africa, north Korea, India, or south america is delusional
    You're just showing how much you don't know.

    It's ok - you're not alone. The government only recently started to heavily evaluate the subject becaue even they themselves didn't believe that we still had a serious widespread issue.

    But we do - a serious and ignored problem that won't go away no matter how many times you click your heels or donate to the Red Cross.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #763
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so its your position that as long as there is a deficit-caused by a government elected mainly by the middle class-it is the duty of the top 2 percent to pay more and more taxes to take care of all the problems the majority has caused?

    get a clue-as long as the masses dont suffer tax increases to deal with the idiotic spending they clamor for, the masses will have no incentive to stop irresponsible spending
    No, it is my position that biggest part of the deficit were expenditures that mostly benefited the rich - unfunded tax cuts for the most wealthy for the last 30 years, the wars, and a military that spends more than the rest of the world combined.

    taxing the rich to slake the spite of people like you won't make the middle class more productive or more competitive
    .

    This is not about the middle class being spiteful, it is about preventing more and more of the middle class from sliding into poverty.

    And your claim that shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class will make us more competitive does not stand up to the historical record:

    "the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73 to 25 percent) led directly to the Roaring Twenties’ real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929.

    Then, from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90 percent range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure. It was also during this period that the American worker’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.

    Then came Reaganomics." Thom Hartmann | Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

    Perhaps some historical perspective of our tax rates would help you see how just how far we have gone in slashing our Progressive tax system:



    The flat tax would be an even further shift of tax burden on to the middle class, or as you guys call it, trickling down on us.
    Last edited by Catawba; 01-28-11 at 01:29 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #764
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    anyone who thinks the poor in the USA have it as bad as those in most of africa, north Korea, India, or south america is delusional
    So you've changed the discussion of the ever widening gap between the rich and the middle class to say our poor are not as bad off as the poor in Africa?

    Well you have good reason to change the subject I suppose:

    "An analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute indicates that the richest one percent of U.S. Households had a net worth 225 times greater than the average American household in 2009. That’s up from 190 times greater, the previous record set in 2004."

    http://www.commercenewstoday.com/archives/4357-Widening-income-gap-bodes-ill-for-U.S..html
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #765
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Your real tax rate: 40%
    2/21/2007
    By Scott Burns
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...TaxRate40.aspx


    Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, 'sin' taxes and the rest add up to a virtual Flat tax nationwide.


    We Have a national flat tax, albeit one with bumps and potholes.


    The fact that the political parties won't acknowledge this is one reason they are doing a disservice to the voting public.

    Instead, both parties have a vested interest in the theatrical possibilities created by the idea of graduated tax rates. Notice that I said "the idea of" graduated tax rates. That should not be confused with reality.
    [......]
    Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.

    Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.

    Well, two researchers did it.

    In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.

    Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.

    As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%..."
    and of course Eliminating the only part of the Tax System that is progressive, Income Taxes, would result in the Effective rate of the Poor/Middle being even higher than the rich.
    Of Course a few pay Much Less than 40%.

    Top Earners Averaged $345 Million in 2007, IRS Says - Bloomberg
    By Ryan J. Donmoyer - February 18, 2010

    The 400 highest-earning U.S. households reported an average of $345 million in income in 2007, up 31% from a year earlier, IRS statistics show.

    The average tax rate for the households fell to the Lowest in almost 20 years.

    The figures for 2007, the last year of an economic expansion, show that the average income reported by the top 400 earners more than doubled from $131.1 million in 2001. That year, Congress adopted tax cuts urged by then-President George W. Bush that Democrats say disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

    Each household in the top 400 of earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, the Lowest since the agency began tracking the data in 1992, the Internal Revenue Service statistics show. The top 400 paid $23 billion in taxes in 2007, up from $18 billion a year earlier, and a bigger amount than any year since 1992.

    Their average effective tax rate was about HALF the 29.4% in 1993, the first year of President Bill Clinton’s administration, when taxes were increased. The top 400 earners reported an average of $46 million of income that year.

    Income ‘Exploded’

    The statistics underscore “two long-term trends: that income at the very top has exploded and their taxes have been Cut dramatically,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group that supports increasing taxes on high-income individuals....
    Last edited by mbig; 01-28-11 at 01:48 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  6. #766
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, it is my position that biggest part of the deficit were expenditures that mostly benefited the rich - unfunded tax cuts for the most wealthy for the last 30 years, the wars, and a military that spends more than the rest of the world combined.

    .

    This is not about the middle class being spiteful, it is about preventing more and more of the middle class from sliding into poverty.

    And your claim that shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class will make us more competitive does not stand up to the historical record:

    "the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73 to 25 percent) led directly to the Roaring Twenties’ real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929.

    Then, from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90 percent range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure. It was also during this period that the American worker’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.

    Then came Reaganomics." Thom Hartmann | Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

    Perhaps some historical perspective of our tax rates would help you see how just how far we have gone in slashing our Progressive tax system:



    The flat tax would be an even further shift of tax burden on to the middle class, or as you guys call it, trickling down on us.
    I know how the numbers work
    I know what was said about it

    But I still don't "get" why JFK (and those with him) dropped it so significantly.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #767
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    I know how the numbers work
    I know what was said about it

    But I still don't "get" why JFK (and those with him) dropped it so significantly.
    I have wondered about this as well. Here is what I learned: ""The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

    This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it.

    A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

    When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

    At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

    The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member."
    JFK, the demand-side tax cutter. - By David Greenberg - Slate Magazine
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #768
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I have wondered about this as well. Here is what I learned: ""The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

    This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it.

    A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

    When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

    At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

    The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member."
    JFK, the demand-side tax cutter. - By David Greenberg - Slate Magazine
    Thanks for this post, very enlightening.

  9. #769
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    I do not want to get off topic, but I was thinking the other day about how many feel the government infusing dollars into research and the like will fail to stimulate jobs in this country and how many feel that we should not take protectionist steps and place tariffs on imports. So I ask would it not favor American business if the entire nation were to remove sales tax from American made goods only. I realize the rate is set per state and not all states have it, but in general if the country were to remove sales and usage taxes off of American made goods only, would this not aid in promoting American growth?

  10. #770
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I do not want to get off topic, but I was thinking the other day about how many feel the government infusing dollars into research and the like will fail to stimulate jobs in this country and how many feel that we should not take protectionist steps and place tariffs on imports. So I ask would it not favor American business if the entire nation were to remove sales tax from American made goods only. I realize the rate is set per state and not all states have it, but in general if the country were to remove sales and usage taxes off of American made goods only, would this not aid in promoting American growth?
    Intriguing idea! I think it would provide an incentive to buy American, but how would we make up the lost tax revenue? Also, for clarification, do you mean removing federal taxes only, or removing state and local taxes as well?
    Last edited by Catawba; 01-28-11 at 04:10 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 77 of 90 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •