Can Taxing The Rich Save The U.S. Economy?

[MTARegional Bus]

True we need to control Government spending but we also have to control the tax system as well,so that everyone pays there fair share.

[Phantom909]

So it's closer to a 30% marginal rate, that's an error on my part and I apologize for that. I like to avoid misinformation, so that's a good catch. It doesn't detract from my point though, which is that the system is deeply messed up to have a circumstance like that for wealthy individuals like the Buffet, Romney, and even the President paying such low amounts in taxes...not to mention individuals like Romney who simply cheat their taxes with Cayman Island accounts.

 

As a single rate? I don't have one. That'd be quite stupid, since we all know flat taxes don't work. That said, the days of Eisenhower with the near 55-60% rates on the richest Americans? That's perfectly fine with me. Taxes aren't about money being taken away from you, they're about putting in a fair amount of your revenue into our general economy. By definition, the uber-rich aren't paying anyway near enough in taxes, with some paying lower rates than the middle class, which is simply offensive.

 

so lets say i make a million dollars a year (which I dont). with your 60% tax rate then I would be paying $600,000 to the federal government. Now lets not forget New York State tax which is $19,000 plus 6.85% on all income over $300,000. that would be 19,000 + 47,900 = 66,900 dollars, so now im up to $666,900. Now I live in Nassau County, my property tax this year was $13,400, so that brings me up to $680,300 in tax liability.

 

So you think that me having to pay every penny i make from january 1 to Labor Day as fair? Who am I working for, myself or the government? You say you want the government to put money back into the economy, whats wrong with me and everyone else putting our own miney into the economy?. The government wastes money, we are $16,000,000,000 in debt. if you spent $1 every minute, it would take you 31,000 years to spend $16 trillion.. I can never understand how you libs want to keep throwing money into the black hole of government spending. They say the definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. mindboggling

 

Joe

[MHV9218]

so lets say i make a million dollars a year (which I dont). with your 60% tax rate then I would be paying $600,000 to the federal government. Now lets not forget New York State tax which is $19,000 plus 6.85% on all income over $300,000. that would be 19,000 + 47,900 = 66,900 dollars, so now im up to $666,900. Now I live in Nassau County, my property tax this year was $13,400, so that brings me up to $680,300 in tax liability.

 

So you think that me having to pay every penny i make from january 1 to Labor Day as fair? Who am I working for, myself or the government? You say you want the government to put money back into the economy, whats wrong with me and everyone else putting our own miney into the economy?. The government wastes money, we are $16,000,000,000 in debt. if you spent $1 every minute, it would take you 31,000 years to spend $16 trillion.. I can never understand how you libs want to keep throwing money into the black hole of government spending. They say the definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. mindboggling

 

Joe

 

 

I agree with you that the government wastes money, it really does. There's no greater black hole than the massive military spending fund, where we throw money at failed programs and pointless wars like there're no consequences. But that's far from a reason to stop paying taxes, and we both know that. Taxes provide the revenue for just about every important public service in the country, from firemen to first-grade teachers, and to say that the government is spending too much so you don't think we should pay for those programs any more? C'mon.

 

Next, let's be clear, nobody is proposing a flat tax. But, I'll play here, if somebody were proposing it, I do stand by the fact that a 55-60% rate is a completely legitimate rate. It's not how much the government will take away, it's how much you can afford to pay. If you make that million and Uncle Sam takes two thirds (which would never happen in a billion years since nobody swallows a tax over 35%, but okay), that still leaves you with $333,000 of income, between 7 and 8 times the national median income. You're still 7 times richer than the average American. This is not complicated math. The more you make, the more you can afford to pay. The less you make, the less you can afford to pay. Keep a negative income tax for the impoverished and out of luck, maintain tiny rates for the middle class, and progressively higher rates for the upper class. The rich will still be rich. Nobody is going to make the rich somehow un-rich. Thing is, the wealthy are richer than they ever were: inequality is worse than it's ever been, and our economy is paying the price. Taxes on the rich can be and need to be raised.

[Tokkemon]

Get rid of the quasi-taxes like tolls on the bridges or lower gas prices by not taxing oil and gas companies up the wazoo (which will, in turn, result in lower gas prices, which means more money to spend), then we'll talk about really cutting taxes.

[Trainmaster5]

I love this thread and the responses I've read so far. It seems that many have oversimplified the history of the tax code(s) and it's effect on the US economy over the last half century or so. It is a fact that in my lifetime, I'm over 60, the economy prospered most under President Eisenhower, R, and President Kennedy,D, and the effective Federal tax rate was higher then than it is today. The Federal tax rate is lower today than it's ever been so what happened? The problem is located in Washington, DC in the US Congress and it knows no party affiliation. I believe the problem started in the mid-sixties with the combination of the Great Society and the Vietnam War. I don't believe there is a reputable economist from any school of thought who believes it's possible to have a stable economy in a "Guns and Butter" world. Simply put it means, even in an economy as powerful and vibrant as the US enjoyed back then, taxes would have to rise to finance either the war or the social programs. Our taxes didn't rise, our pay checks and social programs increased, and the military asked for and were rewarded with billions more to counter the threat posed by the USSR. Tax rates decreased for the next decade after the war ended while social programs and the military got even more money. By the time the eighties rolled around those who had made their money the old fashioned way were considered dinosaurs and the Princes of the City and the Gordon Geckos were the rage and some people in the country were prospering and being cheered while the so-called middle class saw factories shuttered, steel and auto plants being stripped down and their jobs shipped overseas. Real wages have stagnated for a generation, the social fabric started to shred, but no one noticed or cared because those still working saw their Federal tax rate decrease even more. There were attempts to correct this imbalance by Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton, members of both parties, yet those who actually control the country's purse strings in Congress appear to have been bought off by lobbyists because they still clamored for lower taxes. I believe the straw that broke the camel's back were the unfunded wars that came after 9/11 coupled with the fact that the US government was operating with "funny money" and borrowed money for quite some time. I think that everyone should pay their fair share, millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, Joe Six Pack, hedge fund managers, T/Os, cops, teachers, nurses, every damn body. Reform the tax code,eliminate the loopholes, restrucure entitlements if needed, help the small business owners when neccesary. I think the bi-partisan commission's recommendations are a good place to start if we are to put the US on sound financial footing. If tax rates need to be raised on some or all so be it. Don't be fooled by the charlatans on either side. As Bill Clinton said "it's arithmetic". Carry on

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Joe Six Pack.... The thing is there is nothing wrong with low taxes... The problem has been out of control spending, which you mentioned to a degree...

[Phantom909]

It's not how much the government will take away, it's how much you can afford to pay.

 

that one line my friend says it all. That sounds very similar to the quote:

 

"From each according to his abilities,to each according to his needs"

 

If you agree with that quote, then you agree with Karl Marx. That would make you a Marxist.

 

You can sit there and try to justify the government taking 2/3rds of what some people make because they would still have 7-8 times as the average person, but the reality is some people work harder, create businesses, take more risks, create jobs, give to charities than the average person. So why do you want to punish them and take away the money they earned and give to a government that wastes tens of billions of dollars a year? No matter what you think of how people earn their money, nobody puts a gun to your head to buy that iphone, that quarter-pounder, , that tank of gas, etc etc etc, you have the freedom not to buy any of it. There is only one person in this country that is forcing us to buy anything, and that is the President with his health care law.

 

another thing you never look at, you take away that money, maybe the rich guy doesnt buy a new car, that affects auto workers, maybe he doesnt take that vacation, that affects the airline and hotel industries, maybe he doesnt go out to dinner a couple of times a week, that affects the restaurant industry, maybe he doesnt give any money to charities which would affect helping the less fortunate. You tend to look at things like the academic elites who live in a theoretical world, it sounds so rosy and peachy, but we live in the Real World, theory doesnt always translate into the real world..

 

The financial problems in this country is basically 10% revenue and 90% spending. Obama stated in his acceptance speech at the DNC that he will cut $4 trillion off the deficit. what he failed to mention is that is over 10 years, which means $400 billion a year. Since all his deficits through his term have been $1.3 - $1.5 trillion a year, he will only spend $1 trillion more than what the treasury takes in.The CBO has stated that if Obama`s tax plan, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000, would generate $823 Billion over 10 years or $82.3 a year, so then Obama would only be spending $917.7 billion a year more than what the treasury collects. that sir is simple arithmetic.

 

Joe

[MHV9218]

that one line my friend says it all. That sounds very similar to the quote:

 

"From each according to his abilities,to each according to his needs"

 

If you agree with that quote, then you agree with Karl Marx. That would make you a Marxist.

 

You can sit there and try to justify the government taking 2/3rds of what some people make because they would still have 7-8 times as the average person, but the reality is some people work harder, create businesses, take more risks, create jobs, give to charities than the average person. So why do you want to punish them and take away the money they earned and give to a government that wastes tens of billions of dollars a year? No matter what you think of how people earn their money, nobody puts a gun to your head to buy that iphone, that quarter-pounder, , that tank of gas, etc etc etc, you have the freedom not to buy any of it. There is only one person in this country that is forcing us to buy anything, and that is the President with his health care law.

 

another thing you never look at, you take away that money, maybe the rich guy doesnt buy a new car, that affects auto workers, maybe he doesnt take that vacation, that affects the airline and hotel industries, maybe he doesnt go out to dinner a couple of times a week, that affects the restaurant industry, maybe he doesnt give any money to charities which would affect helping the less fortunate. You tend to look at things like the academic elites who live in a theoretical world, it sounds so rosy and peachy, but we live in the Real World, theory doesnt always translate into the real world..

 

The financial problems in this country is basically 10% revenue and 90% spending. Obama stated in his acceptance speech at the DNC that he will cut $4 trillion off the deficit. what he failed to mention is that is over 10 years, which means $400 billion a year. Since all his deficits through his term have been $1.3 - $1.5 trillion a year, he will only spend $1 trillion more than what the treasury takes in.The CBO has stated that if Obama`s tax plan, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000, would generate $823 Billion over 10 years or $82.3 a year, so then Obama would only be spending $917.7 billion a year more than what the treasury collects. that sir is simple arithmetic.

 

Joe

 

 

Well, actually, I do agree with that quote. And I always have. But that doesn't make me a Marxist or a Socialist or a Communist, it just makes me a person with his own opinions and ideas, so don't try to label me on it.

 

Taxes are not "punishment." This needs to get through your head. They just aren't. If you I make more than you, I can afford to pay more than you in taxes. It's not a punishment, it's a social contract to our country. As for health care reform, firstly, if you bash President Obama for it, know Romney did the same thing; secondly, the mandate doesn't actually apply to everybody in the country (only those who can afford it); thirdly, what it really does is keep costs down for the rest of the country when the uninsured get sick, so it does more to save money than take it. But enough about that.

 

Your entire philosophy there is trickle-down economics. That the rich guy will spend his money, which will stimulate the economy, which will help out the poor guy, so why should we tax the rich guy? It's a very nice theory, but we learned it with Bush that it simply doesn't work. The rich, if anything, keep their money and become richer. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, this is literally what happened from 2000-2008 as Bush's trickle down economy slowly eliminated Clinton's surplus and left us entering the worst depression in 80 years. Trickle-down economic theory doesn't work -- as you said, "it sounds so rosy and peachy, but we live in the real world, theory doesn't always translate into the real world."

 

I don't understand where you're getting these numbers from, you tell me you have a legitimate source that the the economy outspends its product 9-to-1? Cause that's a stat I've never heard in my life, and it just doesn't add up. I know Paul Ryan may have popularized lying for a point and Romney's campaign "won't be dictated by fact-checkers," but that's simple not true about the US GDP. Now, I have Obama's speech in front of me right now, and it's not him who said he'd eliminate $4 trillion off the deficit, it's a group of independent economists. Obama's plan is not simply to end the Bush tax cuts, for one, and for another, that deficit has been increasing as we've continued to see Bush's recession worsen -- but we're climbing out of it, so you can't count on losing $1.5 trillion any more, that's just not going to happen unless we see a new recession. I really don't know where to start with this stuff, it's just not that "simple arithmetic" when it comes to trying to gauge the recovery rate compared with the country's GDP. What is simple arithmetic is figuring out that the Romney-Ryan plan cannot cut the deficit when it only allows more tax breaks for the rich in the coming years, and that's math everybody should understand.

[VWM]

Seriously, not all people who have a certain view that differs from yours are some wacko in a screwed up party pushing for something like socialism or Marxism... Learn to accept ideas a bit better

[lilbluefoxie]

Seriously, not all people who have a certain view that differs from yours are some wacko in a screwed up party pushing for something like socialism or Marxism... Learn to accept ideas a bit better

 

 

Respect goes both ways, how many people on here have been dismissing Joe's views in the same way?

[SoSpectacular]

I love this thread and the responses I've read so far. It seems that many have oversimplified the history of the tax code(s) and it's effect on the US economy over the last half century or so. It is a fact that in my lifetime, I'm over 60, the economy prospered most under President Eisenhower, R, and President Kennedy,D, and the effective Federal tax rate was higher then than it is today. The Federal tax rate is lower today than it's ever been so what happened? The problem is located in Washington, DC in the US Congress and it knows no party affiliation. I believe the problem started in the mid-sixties with the combination of the Great Society and the Vietnam War. I don't believe there is a reputable economist from any school of thought who believes it's possible to have a stable economy in a "Guns and Butter" world. Simply put it means, even in an economy as powerful and vibrant as the US enjoyed back then, taxes would have to rise to finance either the war or the social programs. Our taxes didn't rise, our pay checks and social programs increased, and the military asked for and were rewarded with billions more to counter the threat posed by the USSR. Tax rates decreased for the next decade after the war ended while social programs and the military got even more money. By the time the eighties rolled around those who had made their money the old fashioned way were considered dinosaurs and the Princes of the City and the Gordon Geckos were the rage and some people in the country were prospering and being cheered while the so-called middle class saw factories shuttered, steel and auto plants being stripped down and their jobs shipped overseas. Real wages have stagnated for a generation, the social fabric started to shred, but no one noticed or cared because those still working saw their Federal tax rate decrease even more. There were attempts to correct this imbalance by Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton, members of both parties, yet those who actually control the country's purse strings in Congress appear to have been bought off by lobbyists because they still clamored for lower taxes. I believe the straw that broke the camel's back were the unfunded wars that came after 9/11 coupled with the fact that the US government was operating with "funny money" and borrowed money for quite some time. I think that everyone should pay their fair share, millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, Joe Six Pack, hedge fund managers, T/Os, cops, teachers, nurses, every damn body. Reform the tax code,eliminate the loopholes, restrucure entitlements if needed, help the small business owners when neccesary. I think the bi-partisan commission's recommendations are a good place to start if we are to put the US on sound financial footing. If tax rates need to be raised on some or all so be it. Don't be fooled by the charlatans on either side. As Bill Clinton said "it's arithmetic". Carry on

 

 

Thank you, sir!! Nothing but the utmost respect for you!!

[MTARegional Bus]

Same here, I think everyone regardless if there rich or poor should pay lowers taxes so it doesn't hurt them financially , the problem here is that the tax system so complicated with loopholes and a the wealthy and powerfully trying to pay less then there workers, also they need to control government spending when it comes to defense,military,welfare programs and how much money we give to are congressman and senators, do you know how much they get payed for doing nothing? Thanks lobbyist LOL.

 

Unfortunately those things I mentioned well not be a reality LOL. So do I think taxing the Rich will help save the economy?.its a bit of a yes or no.

 

Yes meaning that I think they should be pay there share,lets see what happens when the bush tax cut expire, we will all feel the pinch, not just the Rich

 

No meaning they shouldn't have pay for what government overspends on stupid project like the 2 wars we had and the lazy welfare recipients that don't work .

[Phantom909]

Well, actually, I do agree with that quote. And I always have. But that doesn't make me a Marxist or a Socialist or a Communist, it just makes me a person with his own opinions and ideas, so don't try to label me on it.

 

Taxes are not "punishment." This needs to get through your head. They just aren't. If you I make more than you, I can afford to pay more than you in taxes. It's not a punishment, it's a social contract to our country. As for health care reform, firstly, if you bash President Obama for it, know Romney did the same thing; secondly, the mandate doesn't actually apply to everybody in the country (only those who can afford it); thirdly, what it really does is keep costs down for the rest of the country when the uninsured get sick, so it does more to save money than take it. But enough about that.

 

Your entire philosophy there is trickle-down economics. That the rich guy will spend his money, which will stimulate the economy, which will help out the poor guy, so why should we tax the rich guy? It's a very nice theory, but we learned it with Bush that it simply doesn't work. The rich, if anything, keep their money and become richer. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, this is literally what happened from 2000-2008 as Bush's trickle down economy slowly eliminated Clinton's surplus and left us entering the worst depression in 80 years. Trickle-down economic theory doesn't work -- as you said, "it sounds so rosy and peachy, but we live in the real world, theory doesn't always translate into the real world."

 

I don't understand where you're getting these numbers from, you tell me you have a legitimate source that the the economy outspends its product 9-to-1? Cause that's a stat I've never heard in my life, and it just doesn't add up. I know Paul Ryan may have popularized lying for a point and Romney's campaign "won't be dictated by fact-checkers," but that's simple not true about the US GDP. Now, I have Obama's speech in front of me right now, and it's not him who said he'd eliminate $4 trillion off the deficit, it's a group of independent economists. Obama's plan is not simply to end the Bush tax cuts, for one, and for another, that deficit has been increasing as we've continued to see Bush's recession worsen -- but we're climbing out of it, so you can't count on losing $1.5 trillion any more, that's just not going to happen unless we see a new recession. I really don't know where to start with this stuff, it's just not that "simple arithmetic" when it comes to trying to gauge the recovery rate compared with the country's GDP. What is simple arithmetic is figuring out that the Romney-Ryan plan cannot cut the deficit when it only allows more tax breaks for the rich in the coming years, and that's math everybody should understand.

 

 

if you agree with that quote, then you believe in re-distribution of wealth which is the basis of socialism. Take from the people who earned it and give to people who didnt, like those 2 women i saw in a supermarket today who paid for their groceries with EBT cards and were talking to each other about buying the new iphone5, yeah lets give more money to them

 

Over taxing is punishment. Get that through your head, this country was founded on personal responsibility and the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Individuals use their talents, some have been more successful than others, so your philosophy is to punish them. So why should anyone ever want to try to be successful, when they are only gonna be punished for it, and still have little jealous drones still cry that its not enough. Thats the problem with libs like you, when does it end? When is enough enough?

 

Now for the figures, my statement about 10% taxation to 90% spending is my opinion, but here are the facts, with links, which BTW you never provide.

 

Here is what our debt looked like 12 years ago

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2000.html

 

national debt was $5.696 trillion, federal spending $1.763 trillion, tax revenue $1.965 trillion, surplus of $202 billion

 

8 years ago

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2004.html

 

national debt was $7.417 trillion, federal spending $2.253 trillion, tax revenue $1.850 trillion, deficit was $402 billion.

 

4 years ago

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html

 

national debt was $10.260 trillion, federal spending $2.907 trillion, tax revenue $2.537 trillion, deficit was $369 billion

 

today

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

 

national debt is $16.022 trillion, federal spending is $3.574 trillion, tax revenue is $2.395 trillion, deficit is $1.178 trillion

 

here is what it will look like in 4 years according to the Congressional Budget Office at current rates

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

 

national debt will be $22.399 trillion, federal spending will be $4.771 trillion, tax revenue will be $3.990 trillion, deficit will be $1.058 trillion

 

This site uses data from the US Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office

 

now you say you have Obama`s DNC speech in front of you claiming that he didnt say he would cut the deficit by $4 trillion, heres the video, watch from 22;30-22;50 he says it.

 

 

 

also from his white house website he claims what i said, cutting the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf

 

its the last paragraph on the first page.

 

Now lets look at the deficits, Heres a chart for the deficits from Fiscal year 2007 to FY2013.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

 

Now the FY2009 is counted Against President Bush, but the fiscal year starts on October 1 of the previous year and runs to sept 30th of the calender year that it ends. Fiscal Year 2009 was from Oct 1, 2008 to Sept 30, 2009. it shows the deficit as $1.413 Trillion, but more than half of that is the $787 Billion surplus that Obama added.

 

now for the tax revenue generated if the obama plan of ending the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000

 

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/27/cbo-nearly-1-trillion-saved-by-letting-bush-tax-cuts-over-250000-expire/

 

it wll generate $823 billion over 10 years, plus $127 billion in interest savings (that is if he doesnt spend that 823 billion on something new) so lets say its $950 billion over 10 years, adding the $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years that is $495 billion a year, still way short of what the deficit is and what its projected to be.

 

Now lets look at some of the points of Clinton`s DNC speech. First of all him complaining of cutting banking regulations, when hes the one who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which both you and I agree on is at best disingenuous. He was correct that in the last 52 years, Democratic administrations have created more net jobs than republican administrations. but what he failed to mention, is that the 3 democratic administrations which scored the highest net job growth, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton did not have a major economic downturn. during their administrations Using the chart from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Here are the net job growths of every administration since Jan 1961:

 

JFK +3.572 million

LBJ +11.459 million

Nixon +9.296 million

Ford +2.073 million

Carter+10.339 million

Reagan +16.102 million

GHW Bush +2.593 million

Clinton +22.740 million

GW Bush +1.095 million

Obama -220 thousand

 

JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush inherited bad recessions from their predecessors, but they all cut taxes and had job growth, including the staggering amonut that Reagan had in Sept 1983 when 1.114 million jobs were created. Even though their policies werent enacted immediately, I still counted the job losses during their administrations even though they were a result of the previous administrations recessions. JFK`s policies werent implemented till feb 1964 which LBJ was the beneficiary, Reagan`s policies werent enacted till Aug 1982, GW Bush`s policies werent enacted till June 2001. Obama inherited a horrible recession, but he got his stimulus bill passed on Feb 17, 2009, a month after he took office, which he guaranteed the unemployment rate, which was 7.9% at the time, would never go above 8%, its NEVER been below it since, so he OWNS this economy. Here`s the chart I used:

 

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

So now for the claim of Obama creating 4.5 million jobs, if you total the jobs increase from March 2010, when the string of negative job losses ended till now its +4.056 million, but under his administration the loses totaled 4.276 million, therefore the -220,000 net job growth.

 

So there are the facts. as you can see I used sites that are from the government or use data from the government, Get this through your head, The Private Sector creates jobs and wealth, not the government. Capitalism isnt perfect, no system created by humans can ever be perfect since humans are imperfect, but its the fairest system. Yes, people get rich, so what? God Bless them. Id rather let individuals spend their money as they see fit, instead of giving it to an all encompassing government, who will waste too much of it giving EBT cards to people who can buy iphone5`s. among thousands of other scams.

 

Joe

[CenSin]

Here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

 

Taxing or not taxing the rich won't do much for the economy, but it'll affect the redistribution of wealth.

[Phantom909]

Here: http://finance.yahoo...-151649273.html

 

Taxing or not taxing the rich won't do much for the economy, but it'll affect the redistribution of wealth.

 

 

I dont know how old you are but i beg to differ from the article. having lived and part of the labor force for the last 3 big recessions. tax cuts got us out of the first 2, this last one has been prolonged by obama not following what has worked in the past.

 

Joe

[CenSin]

I dont know how old you are but i beg to differ from the article. having lived and part of the labor force for the last 3 big recessions. tax cuts got us out of the first 2, this last one has been prolonged by obama not following what has worked in the past.

 

Joe

 

If we keep lowering taxes every time a recession hits, at what point do we stop doing that and start cutting essential government programs?

[Phantom909]

If we keep lowering taxes every time a recession hits, at what point do we stop doing that and start cutting essential government programs?

 

 

and what essential government programs are we talking about?

 

joe

[CenSin]

and what essential government programs are we talking about?

 

joe

 

"Which ones" isn't relevant here. The point I'm making is that there is a number called zero. If you keep decrementing the tax rates every time a recession hits, the tax rate will approach zero. At that point, there will be no money for a government-funded anything (which basically means "all of them" hypothetically if you want your question answered). Of course, there will be a point before zero where the tax rates are unlikely to be slashed further. What then?

[Tokkemon]

"Which ones" isn't relevant here. The point I'm making is that there is a number called zero. If you keep decrementing the tax rates every time a recession hits, the tax rate will approach zero. At that point, there will be no money for a government-funded anything (which basically means "all of them" hypothetically if you want your question answered). Of course, there will be a point before zero where the tax rates are unlikely to be slashed further. What then?

 

 

Tax rates don't *only* go down you know. They go up during times of prosperity, often yielding revenue surplus.

[Phantom909]

"Which ones" isn't relevant here. The point I'm making is that there is a number called zero. If you keep decrementing the tax rates every time a recession hits, the tax rate will approach zero. At that point, there will be no money for a government-funded anything (which basically means "all of them" hypothetically if you want your question answered). Of course, there will be a point before zero where the tax rates are unlikely to be slashed further. What then?

 

 

not relevant? im sure there are some programs that you consider essential, which i consider a waste. so throw a few out there

 

joe

[SubwayGuy]

How to Fix America in 20 steps:

 

CORPORATE TAXES AND EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

1-Lower corporate taxes to a very low percentage (1%) of GROSS INCOME (not net income!) LESS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS.

2-Wages paid to American citizen workers in American dollars (individually, up to 100 times the median salary for the previous year - aka very high CEO pay is not tax deductible) are an allowed deduction, along with selected others. Not the least of which will be depreciation expenses on any facility that either extracts resources or manufactures goods in America.

3-Noncash compensation is ILLEGAL, with the exception of compensation in stock (NOTE: NOT OPTIONS...ACTUAL STOCK). Stock compensation is treated to the business as a compensation valued on the day given, but the employee receiving them is not taxed until the employee sells the stock, at which point the employee is taxed based on the value on the date sold.

4-Employers must compensate their employees for the previous year's health insurance expenses as a one-time raise, which is built into their new pay and all future compensation negotiations. Employers are no longer responsible for providing health insurance for employees, instead like car insurance, employees are free to shop around from the providers in their state for the plan that works best for them. This effectively ends the need for the administrative headache that is of little value to people called COBRA.

5-End partnerships and S Corporations as an allowable business model. Any business model other than a sole proprietorship must incorporate itself to do business in the USA. Sole proprietorships can continue to exist, but they do not have the shield of a corporation to protect the owner's personal assets from liability in the event of a lawsuit.

 

INDIVIDUAL TAXATION

5-Capital gains are treated as ordinary income EXCEPT for capital gains made on investments in qualifying IRA/Roth IRA (the two would be merged in my system into just "IRA" because the distinction would not be necessary as you'll see in about 20 seconds), 401k, 457, and 529 accounts. The reason for excluding these accounts from ordinary income taxation is contributions are limited (and therefore the rich don't have an unfair advantage in resources in generating a tax benefit here in these accouts). As an additional bonus, for the qualifying accounts, capital gains are not taxed at all until they are cashed out, at which point they are taxed 10%.

6-Income taxes are transitioned to a ladder system where the rate rises progressively based on your income. For example the first $10,000 of everyone's income would be taxed at 10%. Someone making 9,000 would pay a 5% rate. Someone making 11,000 would pay 10% on the first 10,000; then the next (higher) rate on the remaining $1,000. And so on. I'm using examples, but you could play with numbers to make it work better. All these numbers are indexed to inflation.

7-Social security benefit age moved to 70. Benefit increases 20% (in addition to cost of living adjustments) every 10 years, as those living longest need social security insurance most.

8-Removal of the property tax. Inheritance tax threshold set at $2 million (to be adjusted for inflation). All inherited amounts in excess of $2 million are subject to a 75% inheritance tax rate. You want to be born rich...too bad, earn it. $2 million in today's dollars is more than enough to have a head start on most of the world and if you can't make it you don't deserve a trust fund bailout to keep slacking. Real property can only be kept on inheritance if it is to be the inheritee's primary residence, otherwise it enters foreclosure if it belongs to the bank, or goes up to public bid for sale with proceeds to the inheritee capped at $2 million (adjusted for inflation). If it becomes the inheritee's primary residence, when it is sold, proceeds in excess of $2 million (adjusted for inflation) are subject to that same 75% inheritance tax rate. In other words, your mom and your dad bought that house, not you.

 

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

9-Re-introduce Glass-Steagal Act. Speculative trading ("investment") is separated from commercial lending ("banking"). Never the two shall meet. Companies cannot do both, they must do one or the other, or form completely legally separate corporations to fill each role. Therefore, never again will market volatility affect the availability of loans/credit again.

10-Hedge funds must drop investment minimums so that anyone can invest in them, just like private equity funds.

11-Break up of large, national banks into smaller regional conglomerates, each with their own "investment" corporation and their own "banking" corporation, all of which are legally independent of each other and unrelated in any way. Bye bye too big to fail.

12-Golden parachutes are no longer to be paid to the employee protected by them. They are to be paid to the USO. They will continue to exist to protect employees from termination in the event of a hostile takeover, but they will not enrich the employee anymore when they are fired.

 

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS

13-All questions regarding gay marriage, religion, abortion, gun control, etc. are deferred to the STATES. These are not federal issues, and positions vary widely depending on where you live. There is no one size fits all solution, and as such it is for the states to decide for their representatives. AKA (exaggeration) if you like gay marriage, hippies, and surfing go live in California, if you just want a gun, an outdoor PBR, and the right to drive a tractor on the freeway...go to Texas.

14-Legal (tort) reform. Judges can unilaterally declare a lawsuit frivolous, in which case the plaintiff pays the defendant's legal costs plus a fee equal to double that, half of which goes to the defendant for the inconvenience, the other half to the jurisdiction in which the matter was filed. The lawyer filing the suit is charged with a "strike". 3 "strikes" in an 18 month period and the lawyer is disbarred.

15-Harsher penalties for violent and financial criminals. Common prisons for all. Reduction of prison amenities - no more weights. Changeover of all "country club" style minimum/low/close security prisons...which are replaced with traditional medium security prisons. Medium becomes the new minimum standard for prison offenses, although more egregious felons can of course be sentenced to maximum/supermax etc. still obviously.

 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

16-Withdrawal of all troops from the Middle East and removal of all aid to non-NATO nations.

17-Withdrawal from the UN. Those third world banana republics begging America for a handout and those Chinese scumbags trying to dictate our trade and bankrupt us are not our friends. All our diplomacy dealings will be through our real allies, NATO.

18-Payment of foreign debt from increased tax revenue to release the importance of deferring on global economic issues to debt holders.

19-Withdrawal from NAFTA.

20-A 35% reduction in military spending. Will still be enough to be competitive and have a strong military, but will cut out the government contractor waste and the continued purchase of obsolete technology due to existing contracts over time.

 

Enjoy.

[Tokkemon]

Sounds like the poster-child for Liberal policy. A lot of these also seem ridiculously unrealistic. This is a global economy and as a superpower the USA can't just withdraw from all things international.

 

Also, I lol'd at withdrawal from NAFTA.

[GojiMet86]

Sounds like the poster-child for Liberal policy. A lot of these also seem ridiculously unrealistic. This is a global economy and as a superpower the USA can't just withdraw from all things international.

 

Also, I lol'd at withdrawal from NAFTA.

 

 

Really? I actually think it's a mixture of both liberal and conservative policies. The progressive income tax and that sort of thing usually tend to be included in liberal policies, while policies giving states more power than the federal gov't and ending aid to other countries tend to be included in conservative policies.

 

I do agree with you, though, that involvement with other world powers while certainly not decrease, simply because the global economy demands it. And unless people want to get rid modern technology and the internet and send us back a good 60 to 100 years back, then there's no avoiding global and international relationships. I mean, basically, relationships between countries have basically replaced relationships between states.

[MHV9218]

How to Fix America in 20 steps:

Enjoy.

 

 

Bout time you came back to these parts of the forums, we're in dire need of same plain old sense here.

 

I'd have to agree with almost everything on that list (you're gonna hurt me by stepping out of the UN though -- I'm an old school guy when it comes to diplomacy, and the UN does so little that along with almost no good, there's also almost no harm; not to mention NATO is a relatively small alliance).

[SubwayGuy]

Bout time you came back to these parts of the forums, we're in dire need of same plain old sense here.

 

I'd have to agree with almost everything on that list (you're gonna hurt me by stepping out of the UN though -- I'm an old school guy when it comes to diplomacy, and the UN does so little that along with almost no good, there's also almost no harm; not to mention NATO is a relatively small alliance).

 

 

The UN includes some of the worst dictatorships and worst human rights violators, but no one seems to care. Also when the UN imposes "sanctions" on America - America has to pay money, however small, which is an absolute waste because all of the countries ESPECIALLY China that get "censured" don't get penalized in the same way.

 

It's just a giant charity from the US and the other major ethical super powers like Great Britain, Germany, etc. to spend resources on poorer countries that aren't our allies which frankly we ought to not give a damn about.