How about this: Cut spending and Raise taxes 2-5% on the top 1%

[Polk]

Oh wow, another novel idea. RAISE TAXES.

Great idea. As of April 1st, the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world:

TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: On April 1, U.S. Is #1 (World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate)


Let's raise them further so we can make double digit unemployment a structural feature of the economy.

The word "statutory" does a lot of heavy lifting in that chart.

 

[Polk]

Once again a flaming lib falls right into their own trap.
"Slash benes we all paid into". Umm Continuing down this current path SS will be insolvent in 25 years.

You guys really want to have it both ways on Social Security, don't you...

 

[Polk]

Great idea. As of April 1st, the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world:

TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: On April 1, U.S. Is #1 (World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate)


Let's raise them further so we can make double digit unemployment a structural feature of the economy.

That's the rate, not the real amount paid.

So you would rather have high rates that force companies to lobby the politicians and regulators for tax credits and subsidies to offset the excessive taxes? Cuz that's what we get for having these high rates. Well, that, and more jobs going overseas...

No. I'd rather have lower rates with less loopholes, but the Republicans are bitterly opposed to that.

 

[Polk]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

Currently, the top 1% is something in the neighborhood of households making over 300k a year.

 

[Polk]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

This is why it's so hard to take Republicans seriously. Being the wealthiest 1% of Americans is "upper middle class", but outraged about teachers "only being in it for the money" when their salary plus benefits are about one-sixth of that.

 

[Trajan]

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

well, I have said before and will say again- the level of expectation via outlays by gov. ahead of pop. growth and inflation has created a DEPENDENCY, in other words don't take anything away now, because we need it.........now that you have given it to us.

I would pay more in taxes IF they cut, and I don't mean .5% of the budget either, I mean CUT, I would gladly pay 5% more in taxes if that were locked in to help get us out of this, BUT it will never happen, those who think like that side of the number line whine about Cowboy Poetry events.


Which tells me and others like me exactly what they are about- we have ramped up the spending and we are keeping it, BUT you can gladly get us out of this by paying more in taxes now that we have created the DEPENDENCY...no thx. screw that.

The ONLY bi-partisan action of any consequence that's been done lately was the massive budget busting tax cut passed in December.

A huge budget busting giveaway that only makes the fiscal situation worse, but makes the average American voter happy...

...THAT is the sum total of bi-partisan cooperation our 'leaders' are capable of.

If that doesn't tell you how hopeless the situation is, nothing will.

you must have quoted the wrong post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

 

[Polk]

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

Can you imagine how much they'd flip out if Obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under Reagan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380K would include many SUCCESSFUL small business owners and S-Corp Shareholders! Companies that hire and employ many Americans. Raising their taxes goes right to the company's bottom-line! I say it you want to raise income on the upper class. Then it starts at $1 mil! $1 mil most likely won't hit the small business owner, rather it will be executives of C-Corps.

Have you ever known anyone who said, I don't want to make any more money than i do now, because that money will be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

Ever? Anyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

Can you imagine how much they'd flip out if Obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under Reagan?

The other day someone claimed people won't innovate and invest and try to invent new things if the tax rate on the rich is too high, because supposedly the rich do all the innovation. I pointed out that the top rate was 70% when Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft.

 

[rhodescholar]

Have you ever known anyone who said, I don't want to make any more money than i do now, because that money will be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

Ever? Anyone?

Uh, yes...ME.

I am not motivated by money, and have INTENTIONALLY reduced my sales this year as a giant **** YOU to the NYS assembly, particular trash like sheldon silver, for being a scumbag sleazy piece of shit whose sole purpose in life is to funnel my money to public employee unions and illegal aliens/poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you ever known anyone who said, I don't want to make any more money than i do now, because that money will be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

Ever? Anyone?

Uh, yes...ME.

I am not motivated by money, and have INTENTIONALLY reduced my sales this year as a giant **** YOU to the NYS assembly, particular trash like sheldon silver, for being a scumbag sleazy piece of shit whose sole purpose in life is to funnel my money to public employee unions and illegal aliens/poor.

Ok, other than Mr. Vow of Poverty here,

anyone else?

Good story btw.

 

[boedicca]

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

Can you imagine how much they'd flip out if Obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under Reagan?

The other day someone claimed people won't innovate and invest and try to invent new things if the tax rate on the rich is too high, because supposedly the rich do all the innovation. I pointed out that the top rate was 70% when Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft.

That 70% rate applied only to income which would be above $818K in today's dollars. But it's moot. Founders of companies own Founders Shares, which are taxed at long term capital gains rates (currently 15%). Back in the 70s it was a higher rate with a 50% exclusion from cap gains taxes, resulting in a tad above 15%.

 

[TheSeeker]

There Aren't Enough Millionaires - The Rich Can't Fund Our Deficits

 

[boedicca]

Have you ever known anyone who said, I don't want to make any more money than i do now, because that money will be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

Ever? Anyone?

Uh, yes...ME.

I am not motivated by money, and have INTENTIONALLY reduced my sales this year as a giant **** YOU to the NYS assembly, particular trash like sheldon silver, for being a scumbag sleazy piece of shit whose sole purpose in life is to funnel my money to public employee unions and illegal aliens/poor.

Ok, other than Mr. Vow of Poverty here,

anyone else?

Good story btw.

It's not a vow of poverty. It's a vow of principles and self-preservation. Everyone has a tipping point where the marginal dollar earned is not worth the cost to one's life. The more the government takes, the more people will decide that the extra work is not worth handing over such a large chunk to the government to waste.

But I doubt you'll ever be in a position to make such a choice.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

Can you imagine how much they'd flip out if Obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under Reagan?

What was it under Reagan?

 

[rhodescholar]

It's not a vow of poverty. It's a vow of principles and self-preservation. Everyone has a tipping point where the marginal dollar earned is not worth the cost to one's life. The more the government takes, the more people will decide that the extra work is not worth handing over such a large chunk to the government to waste.

But I doubt you'll ever be in a position to make such a choice.

You nailed it. I am keeping my sales/commission levels at a precise level, deferring where necessary, to ensure I stay at the very top of the highest marginal rate I am willing to tolerate. So even if the ******* trash in my state legislature like sheldon silver thinks they can simply keep raising rates to capture more and more taxes, I will just keep reducing income until it hits zero, thereby starving the state entirely.

What will I survive on? I will transfer ALL assets into non-taxable vehicles, including triple-tax free munis and stand by my mail box and give sleazy shelly the finger each month another laddered-bond comes due to me...

 

[Polk]

380,000 taxable as earned income is pretty rich if you asked me.

And the top rate would only be paid on a third of that.

can you imagine how much they'd flip out if obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under reagan?

what was it under reagan?

50%.

 

[boedicca]

can you imagine how much they'd flip out if obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under reagan?

what was it under reagan?

50%.

Which was a far less than the previous rate of 70%, and a good start to prepare for further reductions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

what was it under reagan?

50%.

Which was a far less than the previous rate of 70%, and a good start to prepare for further reductions.

Wait, I was expecting an anti-tax rant but you seem to have no quarrel with 50% tax rate