Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Taxes


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 12th, 2010, 10:47 PM   #1
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,821
Debate raising taxes on the rich

I'm a liberal and history proves that raising taxes on the rich give us a economic boost. if you disagree please explain.



Larry byhart tax cuts the BS and Facts



Most conservatives, libertarians and republicans believe tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money and therefor they have more to invest and spend in the economy and they have more money to start business and create jobs.



quote from George W. Bush " I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history they recognize tax cuts worked, they had made a different"



Here's the reality (the brute facts).1, Large income tax cuts are always followed by a large bubble and then a crash. 2, high income taxes co relate with economic growth. (another words as income taxes goes up,economic growth goes up) Income tax increases are followed by economic growth. Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy. All of this is especially true applied to the top tax rates.



Here's the examples. The three great tax cuts we had sense the beginning of the 20th century (last hundred years) Hebert Hoover doing war world 1 the top marginal tax rate went up to 73%. In 1922 republicans took control of the house, senate and presidency and they began cutting taxes. They cut taxes rate down from 56% then down to 46% then in 1925 they cut income taxes down to 25%. (they cut taxes down below 30% just like Reagan did). The stock market took off there was a boom but the boom was a bubbles, it was follow by the great crash of 1929. bank failures and the great depression.



Then came Reagan, from Roosevelt's second term and all the way up to Jimmy Carter (1936 to 1982) the top rate was in the 70 to top 92% range. Then came Reagan in 1981, in 1982 he cut that to 50%. The economy immediately went into the worst recession sense the great depression. WHY cause Reagan cut taxes. Reagan's supporters argued it was a Carters fault and that the new policies will take time to work so the tax cut stayed in place. By 1987 there was another round of tax cuts, they took the top rate down to 38% and they said it would stimulate the economy, there was a boom but it was a bubble.



In October of 1987, by the end of that year there was a another crash (the worst sense 1929 and we still call it black Monday). Much of the bubble money was all gone and it went into rel-estate. Suddenly there were bank failures more then doing the great depression. Savings and loan crisis, we had to have a bail out. That what happen doing Ronald Reagan years in the 1980s. Now here comes George W. Bush two. He comes in the the most healthiest and powerful economy in American history. Immediately he cut taxes. top marginal rate down from 39 to 35%, also cut capital gain taxes, inheriting taxes and what happens, an immediate recession.



But he persists economy doesn't grows much. It was accentual flat, and then there's a crash, bank failures and then a bail-out. on the other hand every-time taxes has been raised. whether it was War World 2 1941 to 1945, taxes was 88 to 94% and what happen, the economy BOOMED (in another words got better for those who don't know what boomed means).



Under presidents Truman and Eisenhower the economy BOOMED, Clinton raise taxes the economy BOOMED, Roosevelt raise taxes the economy GREW. Tax increases are followed by economic growth. three of the four high growth periods in the last 100 years have immediately followed significant tax hikes. And the fourth, in the Truman and Eisenhower years begin with a top tax rate at 91%, they did not need a tax hike.
Fayt is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 13th, 2010, 12:48 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 308
I'd have to disagree and if i am perhaps simplistic in my response forgive me but to think that tax rates directly affect the economy is a simplistic idea. There are more factors that go into it then besides how much we "tax the rich" since that is where the majority of the federal income comes from for taxation. While adjusting tax rates certainly has an effect on whether or not new jobs or created, it's not a direct effect. You can look at any tax model and try to make correlations between how adjusting the tax rate creates new jobs and spurs spending.



Certainly you can look back at historical examples and argue for each side of the argument but without taking into consideration all of the factors at the time won’t give you an accurate platform to stand upon.



Life isn't simple and trying to argue for income tax cuts or increases on the basis that it will create jobs or boost the economy is why politics is all about who is the better liar and that applies to both parties in my opinion.





just my thoughts on it at least.
streetprofit is offline  
Old July 13th, 2010, 03:36 AM   #3
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,821
Hope this help you understand more if not Ill try another example



When country is sliding in to depression into deflation, the way you get out of it is by putting money in working people pockets so they can spend that money which creates demand and which stimulate the economy and bring the economy back. You put money in working people pockets (even if that work is planting trees, building roads, hiring one man to dig a hole and hiring one man to fill it up the next day) and they go to the stores spending that money, then the shop people have money, they by goods from manufacturers, the manufacturers start making more things, and the manufacturers start hiring more people. So no longer is there a man digging a hole and someone filling it in, because there’s a factory available.



You get the cycle? So the way you get out of a deflation, which the lack of there being enough money circulating, is by stimulating the economy by spending and giving working people money. Every government that have successfully gotten out of a depression using theses methods have done so by borrowing and borrowing a lot. The debt we got right now, as hard as Reagan and Bush tried to pumping it up, ($13 Trillion) there’s still room to borrow and putting it the pocket of working people.



Our debt right now is nowhere close to 100% of GDP. Our GDP is around $15 or $16 Trillion a year, and are national debt is around $13 Trillion. So we are about 80% of GDP. In 1940s after war world II we were at 120% of GDP and we got out of that in just a matter of a couple of years. And it wasn’t by raising taxes because we had already done that, it wasn’t by cutting taxes. It was simply by just growing the economy and we done that by things like the G.I. bill, putting people to work, helping people buy homes, social safety nets and etc. Truman and Eisenhower build the economy from the bottom up.
Fayt is offline  
Old July 13th, 2010, 04:34 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 308
Yup and I can certainly agree with you there. but what i don't agree on is the method for best creating those jobs. I don't think that raising taxes on the rich will provide any incentive for the rich to make jobs all that would do is give a direct increase to the revenue the fed is collecting from them in taxes. I also understand the idea that if you give them a tax cut then they will want to take that money and put it to good use and in that way create more jobs so that there is more income indirectly created to tax.



I don't really think that either one is a solution in and of itself. I think that the role the fed should be taking is to try to create an environment where people want to open new businesses so that people can get jbos. Yes in a consumer driven economy it's possible that if you throw enough money at people to get them spending again it will start up the economy again and help but i don't agree with that and think it would hurt us long term. I think that if the fed worked with the states and local governments to atract businesses to the area it would be the best long term solution but there are many obstacles with this course of action.



Of course if the fed started to try to provide too many incentives for businesses to produce in the country what we import from other countries then we would have another mess of political issues with countries that rely on us to purchase goods from them to drive their economy. And if you think the solution is to just keep creating more government jobs, well maybe this works to a point, but have you ever worked in the government? I mean come on, you can only throw so many people at one job.
streetprofit is offline  
Old July 13th, 2010, 08:56 AM   #5
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,821
i will say this. The U.S. was massively in debt after World War ll, our debt was great then 100% of gross domestic product. The U.S. borrowed more then we had to fight World War ll, and we paid it back HOW? not by raising taxes, taxes on the millionaires and billionaires was already 91%. We did it by increasing the economy. By giving people better wages, they bought things and stuff that stimulated the economy. When people are able to buy stuff, that increase demand, which then cause company and individual to start business that do the same. We don't make shit in this country any more, well not how we used to



When the top marginal tax rate on income over anywhere between $1 and $3 million a year only pay 20%, 30% and 40% on income tax, but when it gets over $3 million a year and that top tax rate is over 50% then what you have is a country where the average CEO salary is only about 30 times that of the average worker. (which is the way it was in the U.S. in the 1930s till the 1980s and the was it's in most European county and the way it's in japan right now) You will have a country where there's virtually nobody gambling in the stock market because they don't have all this spare money ( $100s of million and billion to gamble with) and you will have manager of corporation and CEO making decisions for long term for the corporation rather than the short term of the stock and dividends price so they can make off with more money. We have right now people making in the U.S. who are literally earning $1, $2, $3, $4, billion a year and paying a maximum 15% income tax because they earn that as capital gains and they want to keep it that way.



If you roll back the Reagan tax cuts they will be taxed after the first $3 million dollars (and inflation adjust to dollars) at 74%. At that point they will say hey I'm not going to take the money I want to build the business. When ever our top marginal tax rate (not the tax on average working people but the tax on millionaire and billionaires) goes above 50% the economy settles down and rationality prevails. And when ever you cut that top marginal tax rate (as we did in the U.S. doing Reagan and as the U.K. did in the late 70s and early 80s) you get casino based economies that are dominated under finance because that's the quickest fastest way to make a buck and that's why London and New York are the world center for both casino finance and casino fraud. And the cure in both cases is the roll back the Reagan tax cuts and the faser tax cuts.





When Reagan came into office our national debts was about a trillion dollars, which in inflation adjusted dollars which pretty much have been ever-cents the revolutionary war. When you look at a 250 year graph of the debt of the U.S. and it bumps up doing the revolutionary war, bumps up doing the civil war, bumps up doing the Spanish American war, world war 1, world war 2, Vietnam, and it always goes back down to that same level. And then you hit Reagan and it EXPLODES off the charts. Because the Strategy Reagan and the Republicans came into office with was that they can destroy the social programs that they hated (that they thought was socialism like social security and medicare) by making the government bankrupt. And the fastest way to bankrupt the government and put a lot of money in the pockets of the people who paid for their campaigned (the millionaires and billionaires) was to cut taxes on the very rich and they did. Guess what happens? Reagan ran up more debt in his 8 years in real dollars then every president form first president George Washington to Jimmy Carter COMBINED. So that 3 trillion dollar debt that Reagan left us with, went up to 5 trillion dollars under Bush and Bush took it to 12 trillion dollars.



not trying to hurt anyones point of views trying to get the facts across, so if this does not help ill try again.
Fayt is offline  
Old July 13th, 2010, 10:33 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
gmeyers1944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 311
President Obama must be having a fit about this one.



washingtonpost.com
gmeyers1944 is offline  
Old July 19th, 2010, 11:58 AM   #7
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetprofit
I'd have to disagree and if i am perhaps simplistic in my response forgive me but to think that tax rates directly affect the economy is a simplistic idea. There are more factors that go into it then besides how much we "tax the rich" since that is where the majority of the federal income comes from for taxation. While adjusting tax rates certainly has an effect on whether or not new jobs or created, it's not a direct effect. You can look at any tax model and try to make correlations between how adjusting the tax rate creates new jobs and spurs spending.



Certainly you can look back at historical examples and argue for each side of the argument but without taking into consideration all of the factors at the time wonít give you an accurate platform to stand upon.



Life isn't simple and trying to argue for income tax cuts or increases on the basis that it will create jobs or boost the economy is why politics is all about who is the better liar and that applies to both parties in my opinion.





just my thoughts on it at least.




You know, since Reagan, republicans have been telling us if we just cut taxes for the rich, we'll have a lot of jobs. The mantra was "Have you ever been offered a job by a poor man?"



I'm all for taxing the rich. We lose about $1.3 trillion each year and that could really help pay off the deficit each year. In addition, abolishing Bush's corporate give away, Medicare Advantage, Could put $2.3 trillion back into the system....with over $3 trillion, we could certainly help Americans....then there's the defense budget....
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old July 19th, 2010, 07:02 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
You know, since Reagan, republicans have been telling us if we just cut taxes for the rich, we'll have a lot of jobs. The mantra was "Have you ever been offered a job by a poor man?"



I'm all for taxing the rich. We lose about $1.3 trillion each year and that could really help pay off the deficit each year. In addition, abolishing Bush's corporate give away, Medicare Advantage, Could put $2.3 trillion back into the system....with over $3 trillion, we could certainly help Americans....then there's the defense budget....


Can you stand the truth? Entitlement Spending has wasted more US TAXPAYER DOLLARS in the last few decades than all the wars of US HISTORY COMBINED, more than double the cost of NATIONAL DEFENSE from the inception of this NATION. Entitlement spending in inflation adjusted Dollars over the past few decades? 15.7 Trillion. The total cost of the Wars in US HISTORY from the Revolution to date? 6.7 Trillion. Yet, here you stand with your hand out crying, "....more soup please...." Don't ya think it time to declare the WAR ON POVERTY a total loss? No matter how much money is thrown its way.....clearly by the demand for MORE SOUP...its a losing battle.



Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor | The Heritage Foundation
Ralph is offline  
Old July 19th, 2010, 10:43 PM   #9
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph
Can you stand the truth? Entitlement Spending has wasted more US TAXPAYER DOLLARS in the last few decades than all the wars of US HISTORY COMBINED, more than double the cost of NATIONAL DEFENSE from the inception of this NATION. Entitlement spending in inflation adjusted Dollars over the past few decades? 15.7 Trillion. The total cost of the Wars in US HISTORY from the Revolution to date? 6.7 Trillion. Yet, here you stand with your hand out crying, "....more soup please...." Don't ya think it time to declare the WAR ON POVERTY a total loss? No matter how much money is thrown its way.....clearly by the demand for MORE SOUP...its a losing battle.



Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor | The Heritage Foundation


If you want people to be less on entitlement programs you need to become a progressive liberal my friend. History shows that democrats have always streamline government while conservatives have increase them.



When you cut taxes, but donít cut spending (in another words you go into deficit spending. Which is what Ronald Reagan did, George Bush Jr did BIG TIME, George Bush Sr. did thought his presidency, and happen doing the first two years of the Clinton administration) you basically offering people $100 worth of government for $80. Because the other $20 is being thrown into debt and people donít see it. Now the theory the Republicans had was that the extra $20 thrown into debt, is going to so horrify the public, that people going to say OH MY GOD WE GOING TO GO INTO DEBT LETS CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.



That was the whole theory of ďstarve the beastĒ, (David Stockman and Ronald Reagan) that by throwing the country into serious debt, people would start behaving more responsively. But in facts what happens, is that because you putting all that extra cost on the credit cards and itís so easy to put expensive on credit cards that congress and the American people (both business community and indivisible community) start demanding more government services because theyíre cheaper. You are getting government services for 80cents of a dollar. And so government is less expensive and so everyone wants more of it and thatís why government increase at a faster rate in the Reagan administration then it had since war world 2.



The rapid increase in the size and scope in government in the last 80 years, (outside of fighting war world 2) was doing singularly, doing the 8 years of the Reagan administration and 8 years of the Bush administration when he (Bush) repeated Reagan horrible mistake. The enormous debt that Reagan ran up (the 3 Trillion debt) did not cause anybody to say oh my God look at the debt.



On the other hand, when Bill Clinton came in, and he raise taxes to the point where we was actually paying $100 on $100 worth of Government, at that point then people who are buying Government essentially were using Government services (whether it's individual consumers, whether it's businesses that are paying the cost of Government services, or whether it's Government agencies that are having to now cover their own cost, you know the pentagon have to have a balance budget or what-ever ) at that point they say ahhh this is kinda getting expensive lets slow it down.



That's why in the last 6 years in the Clinton administration, we actually saw the size of Government and the total amount of Government services (when the inflation adjust to real dollars) decrease steadily for 6 years, and it starting exploding again under George W. Bush. The bottom line is tax cut (on the rich) all they do is blow up the size of Government and blow up debt.

Fayt is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 09:15 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
gmeyers1944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
If you want people to be less on entitlement programs you need to become a progressive liberal my friend. History shows that democrats have always streamline government while conservatives have increase them.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Were big government programs like Social Security and Medicare pased during Republican presidencies? ABSOLUTELY NOT

[font=Verdana]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod;306178[/font



When you cut taxes, but donít cut spending (in another words you go into deficit spending. Which is what Ronald Reagan did,
This proves my point. The Democrat controlled Congress agreed to cut spending to go with the cut taxes, but they did not live up to their promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
George Bush Jr did BIG TIME, George Bush Sr. did thought his presidency, and happen doing the first two years of the Clinton administration) you basically offering people $100 worth of government for $80. Because the other $20 is being thrown into debt and people donít see it. Now the theory the Republicans had was that the extra $20 thrown into debt, is going to so horrify the public, that people going to say OH MY GOD WE GOING TO GO INTO DEBT LETS CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.


Did the Republicans spend too much? YES



[color=black]The Democrats now are making the Republicans look like tight wads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod;306178[/COLOR







That's why in the last 6 years in the Clinton administration, we actually saw the size of Government and the total amount of Government services (when the inflation adjust to real dollars) decrease steadily for 6 years, and it starting exploding again under George W. Bush. The bottom line is tax cut (on the rich) all they do is blow up the size of Government and blow up debt.




"The last 6 years of the Clinton administration saw the size of Government ......decrease" because of Republican control of Congress.
gmeyers1944 is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 09:58 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
When has there been a republican president that reduced the deficit?
waitingtables is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 11:05 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
When has there been a republican president that reduced the deficit?


there must be some human pathological need for thinking in terms of a single "ruler" or "king" or "pack leader" or "tribal chief" that is hard wired into the human brain.



But, no matter how difficult it apparently is for us to wrap our minds around, we must still keep reminding each other here that it is not the president that determines the budget. It is congress. It is not the president that decides how much to tax the people. It is congress. It is not the president that decides how much more the country will spend than the government receives. It is the congress.



The purse strings are under the control of congress.



Congress.



Now ask your question again.
scrjnki is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 11:33 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
If you want people to be less on entitlement programs you need to become a progressive liberal my friend. History shows that democrats have always streamline government while conservatives have increase them.



When you cut taxes, but don’t cut spending (in another words you go into deficit spending. Which is what Ronald Reagan did, George Bush Jr did BIG TIME, George Bush Sr. did thought his presidency, and happen doing the first two years of the Clinton administration) you basically offering people $100 worth of government for $80. Because the other $20 is being thrown into debt and people don’t see it. Now the theory the Republicans had was that the extra $20 thrown into debt, is going to so horrify the public, that people going to say OH MY GOD WE GOING TO GO INTO DEBT LETS CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.



That was the whole theory of “starve the beast”, (David Stockman and Ronald Reagan) that by throwing the country into serious debt, people would start behaving more responsively. But in facts what happens, is that because you putting all that extra cost on the credit cards and it’s so easy to put expensive on credit cards that congress and the American people (both business community and indivisible community) start demanding more government services because they’re cheaper. You are getting government services for 80cents of a dollar. And so government is less expensive and so everyone wants more of it and that’s why government increase at a faster rate in the Reagan administration then it had since war world 2.



The rapid increase in the size and scope in government in the last 80 years, (outside of fighting war world 2) was doing singularly, doing the 8 years of the Reagan administration and 8 years of the Bush administration when he (Bush) repeated Reagan horrible mistake. The enormous debt that Reagan ran up (the 3 Trillion debt) did not cause anybody to say oh my God look at the debt.



On the other hand, when Bill Clinton came in, and he raise taxes to the point where we was actually paying $100 on $100 worth of Government, at that point then people who are buying Government essentially were using Government services (whether it's individual consumers, whether it's businesses that are paying the cost of Government services, or whether it's Government agencies that are having to now cover their own cost, you know the pentagon have to have a balance budget or what-ever ) at that point they say ahhh this is kinda getting expensive lets slow it down.



That's why in the last 6 years in the Clinton administration, we actually saw the size of Government and the total amount of Government services (when the inflation adjust to real dollars) decrease steadily for 6 years, and it starting exploding again under George W. Bush. The bottom line is tax cut (on the rich) all they do is blow up the size of Government and blow up debt.



I did take note the you provided no Demonstrable, Objective Evidence to support your political rhetoric in the face of this latest PROGRESSIVE reign, starting in 06 - to date. The facts directly contradict your subjective bias and bigotry. Why did Government DECREASE during the 90s....FACT, Congress was controlled by the Conservative Ideology which brought about a CONSERVATIVE 'contract with America'.



Previous, in his first 2 years behind the helm(93-94)....We had the huge projected EXPENDITURE of "Hillary Care"....rejected by WE THE PEOPLE, who became so angered at the uber-left agenda of the Clintons and a Liberal Congress that Congress shifted power bases for the first time in half a century as the PROGRESSIVES and their BIG SPENDING agenda lost both houses. Which made SLICK WILLEY run to the CENTER faster than a rabbit with a hound on its ass. Which brought about WELFARE REFORM and a chance at a BALANCED BUDGET. Sound Familiar? It should.....ONCE AGAIN the PROGRESSIVE AGENDA is being acted upon, resulting in a 4x greater deficit than what they were left with, DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT, a COLLAPSING ECONOMY, A COLLAPSING HOUSING MARKET, AND A STOCK MARKET THAT BETTER RESEMBLES A YO-YO....and once again, THE SILENT MAJORITY is speaking with a very loud and solidified voice and denouncing the BIG SPENDING, BIG GOVERNMENT tactics of a MARXIST mentality. As the polling numbers demonstrate....the more money the PROGRESSIVES WASTE with no results as promised, with the only thing growing demonstrated to be BIG GOVERNMENT...the more their AGENDA is tanking.



Its most difficult indeed to begin with a 60% approval rating because you promised to DRAIN THE SWAMP and reign in BIG SPENDING.....and see those numbers fall to 38%....IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. We the People are not so stupid or gullible as your guild would project and/or hope they would be.



The only difference between the 90s and today? We have a TRUE 'Alinsky Radical' with a Marxist Agenda in power at the Oval Office who has demonstrated in less than two years that he does not care in the least to circumvent the Checks placed upon his power by the Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government. He has an Agenda....to collapse this economy and to rebuild it from scratch with HIM being the Totalitarian Despot in Control....he will not back down nor listen to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, its full speed ahead with his agenda....to do as much damage as possible before the 2012 elections....hoping beyond hope to implement a state of Marshall Law upon THE PEOPLE before such time as he is kicked from power. We shall see how things play out. Regardless, The United States is in for a most difficult course to traverse over the next 36 months. But, THE PEOPLE will not go silently into the good night....as history demonstrates, The American Peoples have never been easy to govern and totally REJECT totalitarianism when their freedoms are threatened.
Ralph is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 11:41 AM   #14
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
How about this... How about instead of tax brackets, and taxing income... We have one flat tax, and we tax what people spend. Why should people be penalized for earning or saving? Taxes are a necessary evil, it's true... But Our current tax system is absurd.



Watch this... John Stossel does an amazing job of presenting the issue and discussing the problems, then he and Neal Boortz present a real, and viable solution that is better for everyone, and allows for SMALLER government. And that's always a good thing.



Hulu - Stossel: Thu, Apr 15, 2010 - Watch the full episode now.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 11:55 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256
How about this... How about instead of tax brackets, and taxing income... We have one flat tax, and we tax what people spend. Why should people be penalized for earning or saving? Taxes are a necessary evil, it's true... But Our current tax system is absurd.



Watch this... John Stossel does an amazing job of presenting the issue and discussing the problems, then he and Neal Boortz present a real, and viable solution that is better for everyone, and allows for SMALLER government. And that's always a good thing.



Hulu - Stossel: Thu, Apr 15, 2010 - Watch the full episode now.


This works simply because it adheres to the mandate of "uniformity" found in Article One Section Eight of the compact agreement among the States known as the United States Constitution. Any "progressive" tax levy is in direct contradiction of this unambiguous mandate. A flat, straight across the board TAX is the only method to be totally FAIR and EQUAL....ie, UNIFORM, to all STATES/WE THE PEOPLE. But it will not work, BIG BROTHER does not want to relinquish the POWER found to exist in the IRS. Did you notice that to enact the new HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION some 16000 + new federal employees are being called for? That's almost 17 legions of Bureaucrats. Where does BIG BROTHER want to place these LEGIONS to help the supposed POOR PEOPLE that can't afford health care.....The Dept. of Health and Human Services to screen eligibility? No of course not......THE IRS is tasked with the DUTY of REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH under the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. Is it not obvious what the TRUE AGENDA is? INCOME REDISTRIBUTION....not health care which is but an ALINSKY means to an end..with MARXISM being the goal.
Ralph is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 12:03 PM   #16
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Absolutely. The problem is we talk to much about "Tax Cuts" There should be no tax cuts for anyone for any reason. Period. And everyone should pay the same, flat, percentage on what they spend, on everything beyond a certain minimum amount. It's fair for everyone, and doesn't punish you for being successful, and it rewards you for saving!
tadpole256 is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 12:04 PM   #17
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
tadpole256 is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 01:30 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256
Absolutely. The problem is we talk to much about "Tax Cuts" There should be no tax cuts for anyone for any reason. Period. And everyone should pay the same, flat, percentage on what they spend, on everything beyond a certain minimum amount. It's fair for everyone, and doesn't punish you for being successful, and it rewards you for saving!


I absolutely support the "fair" tax, or consumption tax, and have argued for it on this site. I don't agree on your concept of taxing only "on everything beyond a certain minimum amount" because the record-keeping to prove that cutoff point to begin taxation is too burdensome. Better to simply exempt a few crucial basic categories of expenditures like food, clothing and shelter. By food, I mean groceries, not a dinner and drinks at Spago's. By shelter, I mean one's primary residence (or the rent thereon), with incrementally increasing VAT tax rate applied to successive properties purchased.



Of course, this will seem so so very unfair to the 46% of Americans who currently pay no income tax at all, since for the first time in many of their lives, they will have a stake in federal tax policy. Not surprisingly, these same people probably scream the loudest that the rich don't pay enough.



But, under a consumption tax, the rich will continue to pay the most taxes if they want to enjoy the fruits of their wealth. Otherwise, the only way the rich can avoid consumption taxes is to retreat to live in a single-wide trailer, eating their tax exempt groceries and driving an '89 Chevy Caprice.



The more you spend (because you can...) the more tax you pay.



The best and most fair part is that nobody pays nothing.
scrjnki is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 01:33 PM   #19
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki
I absolutely support the "fair" tax, or consumption tax, and have argued for it on this site. I don't agree on your concept of taxing only "on everything beyond a certain minimum amount" because the record-keeping to prove that cutoff point to begin taxation is too burdensome. Better to simply exempt a few crucial basic categories of expenditures like food, clothing and shelter. By food, I mean groceries, not a dinner and drinks at Spago's. By shelter, I mean one's primary residence (or the rent thereon), with incrementally increasing VAT tax rate applied to successive properties purchased.



Of course, this will seem so so very unfair to the 46% of Americans who currently pay no income tax at all, since for the first time in many of their lives, they will have a stake in federal tax policy. Not surprisingly, these same people probably scream the loudest that the rich don't pay enough.



But, under a consumption tax, the rich will continue to pay the most taxes if they want to enjoy the fruits of their wealth. Otherwise, the only way the rich can avoid consumption taxes is to retreat to live in a single-wide trailer, eating their tax exempt groceries and driving an '89 Chevy Caprice.



The more you spend (because you can...) the more tax you pay.



The best and most fair part is that nobody pays nothing.


The way you eliminate the need to do all the paperwork and accounting, as Neal Boortz explains on the Stossel show, linked above, is that the Government provide a stipend to every man woman and child in the country of an equal amount. That's your tax free benefit.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old July 20th, 2010, 01:34 PM   #20
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Neal Boortz Explains it better than me.
tadpole256 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Taxes

Tags
debate, raising, rich, taxes


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raising or lowering taxes hoser3 Taxes 0 January 10th, 2013 07:57 PM
Paul Supports ... Raising Taxes?!?!? imaginethat Politicians 2 November 3rd, 2011 09:42 PM
Time for Super Taxes for the Super Rich intangible child Taxes 41 September 13th, 2010 08:29 PM
Debate raising taxes on the rich Fayt Taxes 82 July 22nd, 2010 06:02 AM
Democrats not ruling out higher taxes for rich CNN Taxes 6 January 9th, 2007 01:07 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.