Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't. The government almost never makes good decisions. Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question. Some are and some aren't. The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income. It won't. The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses. All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
What benefits society is a subjective question. Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism? Yeah, I definitely think so.
There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.
Mac, I am not a trained monkey who likes to do tricks and bores the he'll out of me during tax time.... I hate waiting in linesI think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't. The government almost never makes good decisions. Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question. Some are and some aren't. The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income. It won't. The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses. All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
What benefits society is a subjective question. Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism? Yeah, I definitely think so.
There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.
That's a fancy way of saying the welfare tax checks are needed for the velocity of money.I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't. The government almost never makes good decisions. Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question. Some are and some aren't. The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income. It won't. The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses. All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
What benefits society is a subjective question. Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism? Yeah, I definitely think so.
There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.
Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.More input........................explain...............Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
No, I'm talking about regular, income-earning taxpayers who are incentivized to invest, not welfare recipients.That's a fancy way of saying the welfare tax checks are needed for the velocity of money. In other words you don't want the 200 Billion a year that we have to borrow to pay out to go away.I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't. The government almost never makes good decisions. Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question. Some are and some aren't. The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income. It won't. The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses. All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
What benefits society is a subjective question. Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism? Yeah, I definitely think so.
There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.
Well, whatever your effective tax rate is.Mac, I am not a trained monkey who likes to do tricks and bores the he'll out of me during tax time.... I hate waiting in linesI think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't. The government almost never makes good decisions. Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question. Some are and some aren't. The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income. It won't. The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses. All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
What benefits society is a subjective question. Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism? Yeah, I definitely think so.
There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.
Just tell me what I owe.
Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.More input........................explain...............Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
The amount we actually spend on "welfare" is tough to track down, because the OMB only has a category called "Income Security", which lumps together all kinds of payments such as retirement & disability insurance, federal employee retirement & DI, unemployment, a wide range of things.
Yes, I'm fine with "welfare", as long as there is some kind of cultural commitment to ending knee-jerking towards victimization and this inter-generational dependence on "someone else". Which we do not have.
.
Well, that's what your tax guy is for.Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.More input........................explain...............Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a wide variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations. A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this. I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even adding a couple of new, higher margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.
Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
The amount we actually spend on "welfare" is tough to track down, because the OMB only has a category called "Income Security", which lumps together all kinds of payments such as retirement & disability insurance, federal employee retirement & DI, unemployment, a wide range of things.
Yes, I'm fine with "welfare", as long as there is some kind of cultural commitment to ending knee-jerking towards victimization and this inter-generational dependence on "someone else". Which we do not have.
.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Just tell me what I owe.
Its boring as he'll, what do I look like a coupon clipper?
Not into scamming the system
Absolutely, they should pay more.
We need a simple plan.................
KISS.......................
Keep It Simple Stupid...............
Simplifying the code makes it harder to con it, and easier to figure your bottom line. I made x amount of money, and I pay y amount of taxes............
The Simpler the better...........in business taxation it still comes down to receipts versus expenses.
Because to them there will never be enough taxation, and never be too much Gov't.Absolutely, they should pay more.
Why should we all get looted more?
It could be done either way..........but the consumption based tax would be the simplest form of it........Under business taxes it will still have to have many rules and regs for filing..................But it doesn't need to be the 70 k pages we have today..............We need a simple plan.................
KISS.......................
Keep It Simple Stupid...............
Simplifying the code makes it harder to con it, and easier to figure your bottom line. I made x amount of money, and I pay y amount of taxes............
The Simpler the better...........in business taxation it still comes down to receipts versus expenses.
The only way to do that is get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption based tax.
