Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[dcraelin]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.


Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.

 

[dcraelin]

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.

 

[Arizona Willie]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses cause they don't NEED to

 

[Arizona Willie]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

If Democrats teabaggers boehner and McConnell or Tom delay and pedophile Dennis hastert and bush as much as McConnell did harry Reid and pelosi, you repubs wuold be crying like babies.

You hold us to a higher standard because you know most voters don't pay attention enough to know this.

In fact I bet your dumb ass doesn't even know it. Do you?

Try that again, in English? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.

Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM

Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.

In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.

It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.

Read the rest at: Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship

This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.

When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person. I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.

Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead. What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?

So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government. Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.

So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%? Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate. Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today. If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's, I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems. That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.

Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype. Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings. Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam. No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.

 

[SAYIT]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!

Yanno, you call Ray the DUMMY yet you have simply reiterated what he said.
A $10,000 deduction isn't $10,000 off one's tax burden but rather is $10,000 off one's taxable income, lowering one's tax liability by their Marginal Tax Rate which,at 10% would be a $1,000 savings (10%x$10,000).

The more I read from all you loony lefties here the more I realize just how clueless you are. CLUELESS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol



Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!

Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.

 

[SAYIT]

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.


Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.

BINGO! That is what makes our tax system so "progressive" and also explains why the top 25% of all American earners carry 86% of the total fed income tax load while the bottom 49% pay NOTHING ... NADA ... ZILCH!

They get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax but the issue for the loony lefties here is that ZILCH is too much for low earners to contribute and 86% is too small a share for our top 25%.

So where do you come down on the issue? Is 86% enough? If not what would be enough?
96%?
106%?

 

[SAYIT]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses cause they don't NEED to

Now see if you can figure out what about the global economy allowed for our go-go economy in the 50s & 60s - certainly not the 70s - and what changed to bring it all to an end.
BTW, posting your Socialists-R-Us.com agitprop in large font or bold makes it no more credible than it is when regular-sized.

 

[SAYIT]

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.

Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?

 

[Dad2three]

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.

Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!

 

[Dad2three]

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.

Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM

Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.

In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.

It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.

Read the rest at: Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship

This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.

When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person. I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.

Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead. What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?

So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government. Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.

So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%? Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate. Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today. If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's, I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems. That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.

Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype. Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings. Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam. No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.

"it' believed", 3,000 from one year to 3,500 the next? lol 3,500????


DON'T REMEMBER THE SWISS BANKING SCANDALS WHERE THOUSANDS OF "JOB CREATORS" HELD BILLIONS OFF SHORE, EVADING TAXES AND YET SETTLED FOR BILLIONS???

No 90% WASN'T the effective rate, BUT it was an EFFECTIVE rate of 60%-70% on the top 1/100th of 1% from 1932-1980!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol



Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!

Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.

True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.

Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!

like your creative math on SS tax rates

Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.


Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.

BINGO! That is what makes our tax system so "progressive" and also explains why the top 25% of all American earners carry 86% of the total fed income tax load while the bottom 49% pay NOTHING ... NADA ... ZILCH!

They get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax but the issue for the loony lefties here is that ZILCH is too much for low earners to contribute and 86% is too small a share for our top 25%.

So where do you come down on the issue? Is 86% enough? If not what would be enough?
96%?
106%?

MORE right wing garbage. Those "lucky Duckies" at the bottom 50% DO PAY OTHER TAXES ON THEIR 11% OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED, AS DROP FROM NEARLY 18% IN 1980, A CUT FRO OF ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY (COULD THEY AFFORD INCOME TAXES THEN??) TO THEIR LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY INCOME?


Those top 25% of families, 34 million families, MADE 70% OF ALL INCOME BUBS!


PROGRESSIVE? lol

But in sum, the nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who advocate for top-heavy tax cuts and erroneously claim the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring other taxes that Americans pay. As the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2015 is roughly equal to their total share of income.
Who Pays Taxes in America in 2015? | CTJReports

 

[Dad2three]

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.

Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?

Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.

Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!

like your creative math on SS tax rates

Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!

Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

 

[francoHFW]

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

Tissue?

So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol

How can you type thru your tears?

We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.