62% Federal Tax rate??!!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

As Mr Spock would say..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Especially in this case when the rich don't "need", they covet. In the end, one either favors possessions or people. Talk of what is "fair" to one group at the expense of another is inherently "unfair"...such is the world, not a black and white place but one filled with shades of grey.

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

Actually, I thought Spock made that statement regarding his "suicide mission" exposing himself to fatal levels of radiation in the warp drive...perhaps I am mistaken but that's what I recall. Anyway, it obviously wasn't regarding distribution of wealth but applies to life in general. I also support a flat tax with a poverty exclusion so we have a point of agreement there. Socialism is a term that many run from, I have no trouble embracing many so-called Socialist concepts, the problem being avoiding a central government that denies freedoms to the people in the name of same.

[Antitrust32]

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

that would be too fair. Heck I'd even go for a 10-15% tax.

Any new taxes right now would only amount to even more hyper-spending by the current administration.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

that would be too fair. Heck I'd even go for a 10-15% tax.

Any new taxes right now would only amount to even more hyper-spending by the current administration.

Unjustified accusation. Unproven. Illogical. Not evidenced by any fact.

But don't let that stop you from expressing your 'opinion' <g>

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Unjustified accusation. Unproven. Illogical. Not evidenced by any fact.

But don't let that stop you from expressing your 'opinion' <g>

Demonstrated using CBO numbers. Budget up while interest payments down.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Demonstrated using CBO numbers. Budget up while interest payments down.

But what you said was "hyperspending by this administration". You've never addressed that, nor shown how this administration spends.

I've asked you to break down the budget to show this administration's spending, versus what part of the budget is out of their control and predestined, and you've not addressed it in the least.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

think about how much more money would be pumping through the economy though! it would be like churn at a race track.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

think about how much more money would be pumping through the economy though! it would be like churn at a race track.

Churn is good for the economy, especially now. But I think that would decrease churn - it is an effective cash flow (buying power) decrease of 25%, which nobody can afford right now. Having 25% less to spend on gas, groceries, clothing?

Obama really screwed up by not allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire last year. They will next year, with taxes not going up on the lower 98% of income (I think they should) That will make a huge income difference to start. Then we have to address corporate income taxes, eliminating loopholes. It's ridiculous that the ten top richest companies in this country pay little to no income tax. The Republican "jobs plan" is to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%. But they pay little to nothing now. Ridiculous, aside from the American history lesson that unemployment increases as corporate taxes lower.

Doing those two easy revenue-producing things alone - plus being out of Iraq, and drawing down in Afghanistan - will markedly decrease our deficit and put us in a very strong position financially. That's a good start.

[Riot]

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...upt-again.html

"Anywhere between five and the next 12 years, Medicare as we know it will go bankrupt....U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., appearing on Meet the Press, 5-1-2011

Hmm, that sounds familiar.... "

Chicago Tribune July 2, 1969: The Medicare hospital trust fund faces bankruptcy by 1976 and taxes must either be raised or benefits reduced the senate finance committee was told today.

New York Times July 7, 1981: Medicare payroll taxes already imposed by Congress, including two increases scheduled for 1985 and 1986, will only be able to keep the hospital insurance system solvent for eight to 10 more years, three Cabinet officers informed Congress. Even under the Reagan Administration's highly optimistic economic projections, the fund will be bankrupt before 2000, the three said.

Washington Post,March 6, 1983: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici warned the nation's governors the other day, "Medicare can be bankrupt in 2 1/2 years," unless some way is found to put the brakes on its burgeoning costs.

Chicago Tribune: June 25, 1983: Medicare is in danger of bankruptcy as early as 1986, the system’s trustees declared Friday.

Chicago Tribune, March 10 1984: To avert Medicare’s expected insolvency, a federal advisory council proposed Friday raising the eligibility age to 67, taxing employer paid health insurance benefits and boosting the tax on alcohol and tobacco… the Congressional Budget Office said Medicare may be insolvent in 1989

New York Times, January 20, 1985: In the last few years, when it appeared that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money in 1987-89... But the need seemed less urgent after the Congressional Budget Office issued new estimates last September indicating that the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until 1994.

Chicago Tribune February 6, 1985: Medicare is still expected to go bankrupt in 1991, and a new flood of red tape is not helping America's hospitals.

New York Times, March 27, 1985: Reagan Administration officials said tonight that new projections showed the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until late in 1990's.

Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17 1985: Last spring, the government estimated that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money by 1998. Given less optimistic assumptions about the economy, it could happen as soon as 1992

Washington Post, April 1, 1986: The Medicare hospital insurance program faces bankruptcy by 1996, two years earlier than projected last year.

Chicago Tribune, June 29, 1986: Dr. Jerald Schenken of Omaha, an AMA trustee, said the doctors have worked for more than two years on formulating the plan, because they fear the current Medicare system will go bankrupt by the end of the century.

New York Times, May 22, 1988: Reflecting the view of the Reagan Administration, Dr. William L. Roper, the head of the Federal Medicare and Medicaid agency, said, ''With the Medicare Trust Fund expected to go insolvent shortly after 2000, it is hard for us to sign on for a major expansion of the Medicare program beyond the catastrophic care bill.''

New York Times, January 22, 1989: The fund that pays all Government reimbursement for hospital care of Medicare patients is projected to become insolvent in the next decade or so.

Washington Post May 4, 1990: Control of health costs is considered by many experts to be the number one health problem in the United States. Such costs are expected to bankrupt Medicare by the year 2003.

Washington Post December 13, 1994: The trust fund that finances Medicare is projected to become insolvent in the year 2001

Los Angeles Times May 31, 1995: For weeks, Republicans have been talking about a report that warns that Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt in the year 2002.

Chicago Tribune April 25, 1997: Medicare trustees said Thursday that the program providing health care to more than 38 million senior citizens is still headed for bankruptcy in 2001.

Chicago Tribune, January 7, 1999: [The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare] was created in 1997 to deal with Medicare's projected bankruptcy in 2008.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

sounds good to me.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

sounds good to me.

What is your current income tax rate, and is it on 100% of your income? You might want to reconsider what sounds good

[Danzig]

i just wish the govt. would find more ways to encourage job creation by the wealthy. taxing goes to govt coffers, employment helps in far more ways than taxing. jobs boostrevenue, ss, and of course dollars made are dollars spent.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

why stop at $50K why not include all the middle class and make it 150K. Or even better make it a few million and screw only the ultra-rich.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

[clyde]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

Say!!!!....you're good!