raise personal income tax, lower corporate tax

[mbilodeau21]

I'm just curious as to why we can't work out a non-partisan solution to the deficit. I feel like the most fair thing would be to add more brackets to the current progressive individual income tax. Thinking something like 45% for people making over 1MM, and maybe 50% for people making over 10MM?

At the same time, we could reduce the corporate tax rate from top level of 35% to something more competitive like Romney's 25% or maybe even lower depending on what true blue economists think.

I just think that this solution would make both political parties at least somewhat happy, it would help reduce the deficit by increasing growth, the lowered corporate tax rate would reduce corporations leaving the US, and the reduced tax companies would have more income to spend on jobs and investments.

The only people that would really stand to not benefit from this are the extremely wealthy, and even they would be benefiting from the lowered corporate tax as it would likely increase their salaries. I just say better to tax the individual than the corporation, because individuals rarely create jobs, corporations do all of the time.

Anyone have any ideas on why this is a bad idea? I don't pretend to know if it is a good one or not, just seems logical to me.

 

[uscitizen]

A better soloution.
A pure flat rate personla income tax with no deductions.
A flat rate corporate tax as well.

 

[Wiseacre]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

 

[Warrior102]

All you Libberhoids screaming for higher taxes ---

Put your money where your dicksucker is.

Whip out the checkbook and stroke the IRS a fucking check.

$5,000 would be a good start.

Lead by example, for once. Your Commander-In-Chump sure as hell isn't.

Get cracking, asswipes.

 

[uscitizen]

I figure a pure flat personal income tax would be about 15%. And would be on ALL earned income.
There would be none on inheritance nor gifts from immediate family.
There would also be no deductions.

Australia has a flat 20% corporate income tax that seems to work pretty well.

 

[Warrior102]

I figure a pure flat personal income tax would be about 15%. And would be on ALL earned income.
There would be none on inheritance nor gifts from immediate family.
There would also be no deductions.

Australia has a flat 20% corporate income tax that seems to work pretty well.

Hey stupid...

Income tax is levied upon 3 sources of income for individual taxpayers: personal earnings (such as salary and wages), business income and capital gains. Collectively these three sources of income tax account for 66% of federal government revenue and 57% of total revenue across the three tiers of government.[citation needed]

Income received by individuals is taxed at progressive rates, while income derived by companies is taxed at a flat rate of 30%. Generally, capital gains are only subject to tax at the time the gain is realised. Income tax is collected by the Australian Taxation Office for the Government of Australia.

In Australia the financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.

Income tax is applied to the taxable income of a taxable entity. Taxable income is calculated, in a broad sense, by applying allowable deductions against the income of a taxable entity.

 

[uscitizen]

I figure a pure flat personal income tax would be about 15%. And would be on ALL earned income.
There would be none on inheritance nor gifts from immediate family.
There would also be no deductions.

Australia has a flat 20% corporate income tax that seems to work pretty well.

Hey stupid...

Income tax is levied upon 3 sources of income for individual taxpayers: personal earnings (such as salary and wages), business income and capital gains. Collectively these three sources of income tax account for 66% of federal government revenue and 57% of total revenue across the three tiers of government.[citation needed]

Income received by individuals is taxed at progressive rates, while income derived by companies is taxed at a flat rate of 30%. Generally, capital gains are only subject to tax at the time the gain is realised. Income tax is collected by the Australian Taxation Office for the Government of Australia.

In Australia the financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June of the following year.

Income tax is applied to the taxable income of a taxable entity. Taxable income is calculated, in a broad sense, by applying allowable deductions against the income of a taxable entity.

Personal income is personal income regardless of the source and shoul all be taxed the same. Unless it is a Veterans pension, SS or somesuch.

 

[uscitizen]

Also with a pure flat personal income tax with no deductions you could get smaller govt, around 80% less personnel in the IRS.

 

[mbilodeau21]

Well, this forum was a mistake. Warrior102 (really tough name), next time try improving your argument instead of resorting to calling people who actually pose an interesting theory, like uscitizen, names. You sir are everything that is wrong with America, instead of creating an original idea or using facts, you instead rely on the partisan political bs that every uneducated buffoon uses to try to sound like the have an idea of what they're talking about.

For the record, the corporate income tax is 35% not 30%, next time maybe use a google search before you pretend to know what you're talking about. Also, sweet tats dude, I'm sure you're in one of the high tax-brackets that keep this country running yourself.

Get a life.

 

[mbilodeau21]

like seriously, why on earth did you feel the need to include when the fiscal year in Australia runs? What on earth does that have to do with anything being discussed?

 

[Billo_Really]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

That's because more revenue, means less deficits.

 

[Wiseacre]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

That's because more revenue, means less deficits.

For a democrat, more revenue doesn't mean less deficits, it means more spending. Seriously, we've got over a trillion dollars in deficits, and your answer is to get $70 trillion from higher taxes?

 

[Polk]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

 

[Polk]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

That's because more revenue, means less deficits.

For a democrat, more revenue doesn't mean less deficits, it means more spending. Seriously, we've got over a trillion dollars in deficits, and your answer is to get $70 trillion from higher taxes?

Neither party is being honest about what it would take to balance the budget.

 

[Wiseacre]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

 

[Polk]

An even better solution: CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Jesus H. Christ, we're having deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year and the liberals want to try for an extra 70 billion in more revenue.

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

I'd like to see that article if you can find it. As for liberals talking about restraining spending, I guess you totally forgot Obama exists (or you don't consider him a liberal). What do you think the Simpson-Bowles catfood commission was about? And if you think massive cuts to Social Security and defense are politically possible, I don't know which country you're living in, because it definitely isn't this one.

 

[Wiseacre]

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

I'd like to see that article if you can find it. As for liberals talking about restraining spending, I guess you totally forgot Obama exists (or you don't consider him a liberal). What do you think the Simpson-Bowles catfood commission was about? And if you think massive cuts to Social Security and defense are politically possible, I don't know which country you're living in, because it definitely isn't this one.

Here's your link. I started a thread about it a few days back.

It


Seriously, you've giving me Obama? Sure, he talks the talk, but have you seen his budgets? No spending restraint there, and the man totally ignored and discredited Simpson-Bowles. You're a total joke, you really think Obama would cut spending or limiting it? Sure, when pigs fly.

 

[Freemason9]

A better soloution.
A pure flat rate personla income tax with no deductions.
A flat rate corporate tax as well.

Horrible, horrible idea--and the stuff of ideological dreams. This would not work, and it never ever has. All this would do is further shift the tax burden from the rich aristocrats (slave holders) to the workers (slaves). Why on earth would anyone support such a dumb ass idea? Because it seems simple? Holy shit.

What did work? The tax structure of the 1950's. Let's return to that, and maybe our middle class might stand a chance again.

 

[Freemason9]

You can't cut the budget to balance without slashing Social Security checks and gutting defense. It's entirely unrealistic.

There's an article out from the Cato Institute that says we could balance the budget in 10 years if we restrained spending increases to 2.5% annually. Show me the liberal who will say anything about restraining spending. It's not unrealistic, except to liberals whose answer to everything is higher taxes and more spending.

I'd like to see that article if you can find it. As for liberals talking about restraining spending, I guess you totally forgot Obama exists (or you don't consider him a liberal). What do you think the Simpson-Bowles catfood commission was about? And if you think massive cuts to Social Security and defense are politically possible, I don't know which country you're living in, because it definitely isn't this one.

There is nothing Obama can do, nothing Romney can do, the economy is toast. It simply doesn't work anymore with the kind of wealth concentrations that have occured over the last three decades.

And why in the world would anyone believe that CUTTING federal spending (through debt reduction, therefore constricting the money supply) would do anything but create an economic catastrophe? Are you people just plain stupid or something?

 

[Wiseacre]

A better soloution.
A pure flat rate personla income tax with no deductions.
A flat rate corporate tax as well.

Horrible, horrible idea--and the stuff of ideological dreams. This would not work, and it never ever has. All this would do is further shift the tax burden from the rich aristocrats (slave holders) to the workers (slaves). Why on earth would anyone support such a dumb ass idea? Because it seems simple? Holy shit.

What did work? The tax structure of the 1950's. Let's return to that, and maybe our middle class might stand a chance again.

And maybe you're a fucking idiot. Do you really think you can rise taxes to over 90% at the top and get away with it? No consequences? Unbelievably stupid, I dislike to characterize someone else's posts that way, but God Almighty the idea is so beyond ridiculous. As we speak, rich frenchmen are leaving France to escape the tax hikes that Hollande says he will implement, as did the wealthy from other countries who also raised tax rates significantly. And the french are going to pay a price too, you can expect a ful depression in France over the next 4 years, bank on it.

And BTW, you realize the 1950s tax rates at the bottom were very high too, you ready for that? 17.40% for the first $4000 of income, bet you're not for that are ya?