Tweet
So one of our newest Congress people, one known to dance, I believe made a comment that we should tax the super wealthy substantially more. Like back to the 1950's rates. So I checked, and it does indeed appear that back then the very wealthy paid more in taxes. Is she wrong to think this? Something that has always interested me is how many people come to the defense of the wealthy, apparently not considering they are defending the likes of Bloomberg, Soros, et al.
-
-
Last edited by dogtag; 01-05-2019, 01:37. -
The last time the dems raised taxes, they considered income over $70,000 to be "wealthy". If the entire wealth of the "super wealthy" was confiscated, the resulting tax take would be insignificant to the Federal Budget. Dems are thieves. Regards, ClarkComment
-
Most 'wealthy' people have assets which produce income, as opposed to earned income. Difference in tax strategies. Very few people with that kind of money would pay anywhere near 70%. Not that I am defending the Economics Major in Chief.Comment
-
Money has the uncanny ability to run away from the tax man..Comment
-
We cannot defend ourselves without defending ALL Americans -- even those we disapprove of.
WHY should we raise taxes? What is it we need that would justify crippling the economy?
Remember, money paid to the government is money not available to expand businesses and create jobs. It's only money given to politicians, so they can give largess to their supporters. It is, in other words, money to buy chains for our own wrists and ankles.
- - - Updated - - -
And you can bet there will be loopholes for the likes of Soros and Bloomberg! It's the little guys, the people who have struggled all their lives and finally succeeded, who will be hurt.Comment
-
Personally, I'm more in favor of reducing spending and lowering income tax for everyone, with the stipulation that "loopholes" are exterminated. Probably go with eliminating deductions also. In other words if you make X amount of money you pay some percent of tax on that. Simple. And you don't get to hide your earnings in a foreign bank.Comment
-
All right but how about this -- EVERYONE pays taxes? The highest tax rate could be 20 times the lowest tax rate BUT if there is ANY level of income that is not taxed -- or for which the taxes are rebated in any form -- then the lowest tax rate would be zero and NO ONE would pay any taxes.Comment
-
The Parable Of The Boys Who Robbed The Farm.
Two boys were robbing a farm. The farmer caught them and tied them up in the barn.
He dragged one boy outside and said, "You were stealing grapes!!" He pulled the boy's pants down and started shoving grapes where you should never shove grapes. The boy began laughing.
"What are you laughing at? Doesn't this hurt?"
The boy said, "Well, yeah, it hurts. But the other guy was stealing watermelons!"
This is the theory of the Politics of Envy -- we will laugh when the government pushes grapes up our exhaust pipe, if we think someone else is going to get watermelons.Comment
-
Tax loopholes occur because people with resources gain access to those writing the tax legislation.Comment
-
My vote would go to a flat rate tax. This was brought up back in the 70's and indicated that if everyone paid 10% the government would receive more taxes than existed with the structure in place. Everybody pays including churches since any one can open a church and be tax exempt. No loop holes, no write offs, no depreciation. It would be plain and simple for the majority never having to go to a tax preparer again. The tax would be on profits for businesses so expenses could still be deducted.
There would be very few exclusions on this like people collecting temporary unemployment compensation and people on disability.
The reason 10% would work is because of all the large corporations that pay nothing due to the current tax laws would be paying 10%. This was brought up again by Herman Cain when he was running for prez but he was coming up with something like 28% plus a variety of exemptions and loop holes. It was doomed to fail since it sounds exactly like the current laws.
If such a law could ever be passed it would have to be 10% (or whatever) never to increase otherwise we all know what would happen. If the government needed more taxes they would need to put more people to work who of course would be paying the flat rate tax.Comment
-
Thought about the flat tax concept. I think it has merit but a progressive rate should be applied to it. So for example if you earn 50,000 or less you pay 10%. If you earn over 200,000 you pay 15%. Cap the max rate at like 25%.Comment
-
The problem I see with that is if there are different rates then that gives the feds flexibility. Over time everyone would end up being advanced up to the max.
The $50,000 folks @ 10% would be lowered to $10,000 @10% so the $50,000 folks could be increased to the 15-25% rate and so on. There couldn't be any wiggle room or gray areas for it to work. Remember if we give the government an inch they take a yard.
As far as people earning more goes--they pay more even at the same % rate.Comment
Comment