Could Bernie actually win NY, and save us from this long national nightmare?

[Iceweasel]

I'm no fan of free college education, because there's a reason sloth is a sin and both the Founders and Reagan opposed it, and I'm absolutely against any new federal programs, but something like 65% of us figure this supply side tax cut gimmick has really worn itself out.

And four to eight years of Hillary is not gonna be change to believe in.

I actually remember a time when it didn't take eight years to get out of a recession and only wind up with mediocre employment. I want to go back to the supply side 'gimmick' because it seemed to work a lot better.

It worked swell till it killed the middle class. I realize you are a partisan. But the best tax plan is the one that Ryan pushes, and Rubio did at first two. Broaden the base of what is taxed, and use the new revenue to lower taxes on the middle class, so as to increase consumption and drive growth. But that is not a supply side tax.

That's a lie. Lefties love to rewrite history to cling to their losing beliefs. I started my business back then and the economy was booming. Every analysis I've seen confirms it. The shrinking middle class is what's going on NOW.

Go pound sand punk.

Lyin bendog is a keyboard tough guy! Go figure.

 

[NightFox]

I'm no fan of free college education,

That's good 'cause there is no such thing as free college and nothing is more expensive than when government puts it's grubby, thieving paws on it.

TANSTAFL

but something like 65% of us figure this supply side tax cut gimmick has really worn itself out.

So what's your and the rest of said "65%" of "us" proposal regarding taxes?

And four to eight years of Hillary is not gonna be change to believe in.

If you're a gub'mint worshiper four to eight years of Hillary will be status quo you can believe in, the only change you'll get is that the volume of deception, incompetence and thievery emanating from the Oval Office will increase exponentially over what President Dip Stick's administration currently puts out.

I'm more in favor of the Paul Ryan approach, and I'll let you google that yourself, as it's not my proposal but more close to what I'd like.

If I were king, I'd tax long term cap gains as ordinary income, and kill the rental income tax expenditure, limit the mortagage interest deduction to a 300-500K per mortgage, and kill every tax credit/deduction that favors buying a product by any individual or corporation. I'd use the money to reduce rates on households with 70K to 150K in net income. I'm not a great fan of corporate income tax either.

Why does one group of people deserve special treatment at the expense of others? In fact why tax INCOMES at all?

 

[bendog]

I'm no fan of free college education,

That's good 'cause there is no such thing as free college and nothing is more expensive than when government puts it's grubby, thieving paws on it.

TANSTAFL

but something like 65% of us figure this supply side tax cut gimmick has really worn itself out.

So what's your and the rest of said "65%" of "us" proposal regarding taxes?

And four to eight years of Hillary is not gonna be change to believe in.

If you're a gub'mint worshiper four to eight years of Hillary will be status quo you can believe in, the only change you'll get is that the volume of deception, incompetence and thievery emanating from the Oval Office will increase exponentially over what President Dip Stick's administration currently puts out.

I'm more in favor of the Paul Ryan approach, and I'll let you google that yourself, as it's not my proposal but more close to what I'd like.

If I were king, I'd tax long term cap gains as ordinary income, and kill the rental income tax expenditure, limit the mortagage interest deduction to a 300-500K per mortgage, and kill every tax credit/deduction that favors buying a product by any individual or corporation. I'd use the money to reduce rates on households with 70K to 150K in net income. I'm not a great fan of corporate income tax either.

Why does one group of people deserve special treatment at the expense of others? In fact why tax INCOMES at all?

I don't think it's politically possible to go to a consumption rather than income tax, and I'm not at all sold on a consumption tax being non-regressive. I wouldn't necessarily be against a flat tax, but I'd want to see the math first.

Ryan's basic concept is sound: reducing deficits requires more economic growth, and raising taxes or cutting spending, by themselves, will not get the job done. And, the way to increase economic demand the most is for the middle class to spend more.

My post was actually about making the tax system LESS towards favoring of one than another. Ideally, we'd get rid of ALL tax expenditures including employer sponsored health care and middle class mortgage interest deductions, but I was trying for things that I consider to be perhaps politically possible.

As for rates themselves, there is no factual dispute that the top 1%'s incomes are going up even faster than their taxes. And there's no factual dispute that middle class incomes stopped going up at the same time we embraced supply side tax cuts. I'd agree that both of those facts don't mean that there's a 100% correlation between them and supply side tax cuts. But there is a correlation. And, Donald, Hillary and Bernie all agree on this, so .... it's not like other people haven't noticed as well.

 

[Spare_change]

It is very interesting. Has the country really gone so far communist that Sanders is a serious consideration or do they just want to stop hillary?

Not seriously .... the Democrat nomination is rigged. (See: Super delegates)

 

[NightFox]

I'm no fan of free college education,

That's good 'cause there is no such thing as free college and nothing is more expensive than when government puts it's grubby, thieving paws on it.

TANSTAFL

but something like 65% of us figure this supply side tax cut gimmick has really worn itself out.

So what's your and the rest of said "65%" of "us" proposal regarding taxes?

And four to eight years of Hillary is not gonna be change to believe in.

If you're a gub'mint worshiper four to eight years of Hillary will be status quo you can believe in, the only change you'll get is that the volume of deception, incompetence and thievery emanating from the Oval Office will increase exponentially over what President Dip Stick's administration currently puts out.

I'm more in favor of the Paul Ryan approach, and I'll let you google that yourself, as it's not my proposal but more close to what I'd like.

If I were king, I'd tax long term cap gains as ordinary income, and kill the rental income tax expenditure, limit the mortagage interest deduction to a 300-500K per mortgage, and kill every tax credit/deduction that favors buying a product by any individual or corporation. I'd use the money to reduce rates on households with 70K to 150K in net income. I'm not a great fan of corporate income tax either.

Why does one group of people deserve special treatment at the expense of others? In fact why tax INCOMES at all?

I don't think it's politically possible to go to a consumption rather than income tax, and I'm not at all sold on a consumption tax being non-regressive. I wouldn't necessarily be against a flat tax, but I'd want to see the math first.

Didn't say anything about "politically possible" , personally I don't think any reforms to taxation and spending that will benefit the citizenry in general are "politically possible" anymore, the government leviathan is completely focused on fleecing the citizenry to the greatest degree possible for the benefit of the political class and their handlers without inciting open insurrection by the general citizenry. All these so called "tax plans" being bandied about by members of the political class (like Ryan) are nothing more than bread & circuses designed to placate the masses and garner re-election votes.

As for rates themselves, there is no factual dispute that the top 1%'s incomes are going up even faster than their taxes. .

There's a good reason for that, the top 1% have near complete control of government and thus can write any tax plans they want including designating favorable market treatment and subsidy/inflationary payoffs for themselves. Even if you increase up front rates on them they'll just take it all back (and more) via regulatory, subsidy and inflation distribution effect manipulation.