April 30, 201214 yr Here it is as simple as I can make. Last 50 years - increased tax rates for middle and upper middle class; huge cuts in tax rates for the upper 1-2%. Not fair. What's not fair is a centralized power extorting earned income. The whole concept that "the rich make more, they should pay more" baffles me. Where do you find the audacity to take more of an individual's income merely because they're successful? What's so humorous is the fact you believe the federal government will spend our dollars more effectively than we will. I bet everything in my possession that if tax rates for the top 1% (or everyone for that matter) increased to 100% our government would still fail to manage their budget, or cut the deficit. So, other than being "fair", I don't see a plausible reason supporting the notion that tax increases on the rich will be beneficial.
April 30, 201214 yr I'm good with that. Raise the taxes on those who received the biggest breaks over the past 50 years - the very top and the bottom. The problem is that there are not enough at the top and those at the bottom pay hardly anything any all or as many have pointed do not pay what so ever. The 'middle' is where there are most numbers in both people and money. It is the classic bell curve. The government must fund itself. It did this without an income tax at all for over 120 years. The first income tax rate was 1% in 1916. In the early 1930s the government decided to tax the high income earners to offset the taxes lost due to the depression. It is has been strongly speculated that this prolonged the depression unnecessarily. The 90% rate of 1960 was ridiculous. Kennedy and his staff of smart guys knew this and lowered the rate somewhat. As the theories of Hausers law and the Laffer curve show tax rates and tax revenues are not one in the same. Government needs revenues and 'sticking it to the rich' does not usually increase the needed product - revenue. Though the 'Buffett rule' in the media right now, the current administration has admitted that it will not fix anything and that it is just a per-cursor to what will needed to correct the deficit - raising taxes on the middle class. Raising tax rates substantially on the top margins will not keep the government away from the middle class at all. So my issue is - why is this such an issue when the end game will be putting the middle class in the cross hairs of fixing the massive spending problem. I do not care what the rate was 50 years ago for someone who is 'rich' and I really do not care what it is today since going back to 1960 rates fixes nothing. I care what the rate will be for someone who is middle class is 2014. And that is an ugly scenario.
April 30, 201214 yr Any one who thinks that taxing the rich even more than they are now will solve our problems is terribly uninformed...
May 1, 201214 yr Author What's not fair is a centralized power extorting earned income. The whole concept that "the rich make more, they should pay more" baffles me. Where do you find the audacity to take more of an individual's income merely because they're successful? What's so humorous is the fact you believe the federal government will spend our dollars more effectively than we will. I bet everything in my possession that if tax rates for the top 1% (or everyone for that matter) increased to 100% our government would still fail to manage their budget, or cut the deficit. So, other than being "fair", I don't see a plausible reason supporting the notion that tax increases on the rich will be beneficial. Why did you include my post in this post as if you were replying to me? Please find anywhere in this thread (in fact, please find it anywhere on this site in any thread) where I said the federal government will spend our dollars more effectively than we will. Your post has virtually nothing to do with any post I have made in this entire thread.
May 1, 201214 yr I believe the whole reason for the 'Buffet rule' is to get some head room. So that when the move is made to raise the 'less than 250K or 200K' taxes it will not look so bad. But they already get a good chuck of additional revenue from the 150K and above crowd anyway. Its called the AMT. The tax scheduled that has not indexed to inflation and has not been over 20 years. What they probably will do is not 'fix' it after this year. If they do that the $150K earners will get hit hard.
May 1, 201214 yr I believe the whole reason for the 'Buffet rule' is to get some head room. So that when the move is made to raise the 'less than 250K or 200K' taxes it will not look so bad. But they already get a good chuck of additional revenue from the 150K and above crowd anyway. Its called the AMT. The tax scheduled that has not indexed to inflation and has not been over 20 years. What they probably will do is not 'fix' it after this year. If they do that the $150K earners will get hit hard. I have SUCH a long way to go before I get there. :lol:
May 2, 201214 yr How many people here actually didn't get a refund back? How many got all of their money back?
May 2, 201214 yr Until EVERY American has "skin in the game", this issue will never go away. Every American pays taxes. Some just don't pay income taxes.
May 2, 201214 yr So students who work part time jobs should pay income taxes, and the elderly living on fixed incomes should pay income taxes, and disabled and special needs folks should pay income taxes, and those who have been unemployed for part or most of the year should pay income taxes. Truth is, this 51% is not static. People move into and out of this group constantly and it is not the same folks every year . . . just folks with similar circumstances.
May 2, 201214 yr So students who work part time jobs should pay income taxes, and the elderly living on fixed incomes should pay income taxes, and disabled and special needs folks should pay income taxes, and those who have been unemployed for part or most of the year should pay income taxes. Truth is, this 51% is not static. People move into and out of this group constantly and it is not the same folks every year . . . just folks with similar circumstances. Folks move in and out of the upper brackets also.
May 2, 201214 yr So students who work part time jobs should pay income taxes, and the elderly living on fixed incomes should pay income taxes, and disabled and special needs folks should pay income taxes, and those who have been unemployed for part or most of the year should pay income taxes. Truth is, this 51% is not static. People move into and out of this group constantly and it is not the same folks every year . . . just folks with similar circumstances. If there is an income tax then everyone who has an income should pay income tax.
May 2, 201214 yr If there is an income tax then everyone who has an income should pay income tax. On its face, that almost sounds logical. The problem is that the "income tax" is only one of several taxes on income. The SS and medicare taxes are a tax on income. Together they are at a 15.3 percent rate. The capital gains tax is a tax on income. It is at 15 percent. Dividends are income, but they are at a different rate. Not a lot of people with income fail to pay taxes on that income.
May 2, 201214 yr On its face, that almost sounds logical. The problem is that the "income tax" is only one of several taxes on income. The SS and medicare taxes are a tax on income. Together they are at a 15.3 percent rate. The capital gains tax is a tax on income. It is at 15 percent. Dividends are income, but they are at a different rate. Not a lot of people with income fail to pay taxes on that income. Then let me be 100% clear as long as there is a tax called an income tax then every American with an income should pay it. We want to be fair don't we?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.