Should the senate insist on a 40% top tax rate as Trump wants? (Poll)

Should the Senate raise the top tax rate to 40% to make the 1BBB more fair and cut the deficit?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • Total voters
    12
I know that you believe that billionaires shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as the middle class.
I know that billionaires use the same tax code as the rest of us....dumbass.
 
Obama had three terms to raise rates to that level, why didn't he?
FYI-The 40% trump talks of is the rounding of the old 39.6% tax rate for the highest tax bracket earners who make over $600k a year ....it would revert back to the 39.6% tax rate, if the tax cuts were let to expire for the top tier vs. the 37% tax rate that it is right now before the tax cuts expire.
 
FYI-The 40% trump talks of is the rounding of the old 39.6% tax rate for the highest tax bracket earners who make over $600k a year ....it would revert back to the 39.6% tax rate, if the tax cuts were let to expire for the top tier vs. the 37% tax rate that it is right now before the tax cuts expire.

You can overpay
 
show us where taxes will increase on low and middle income earners ..
Tariffs they will pay in the price of goods, is added taxes for a good portion if not most all, of their income.

Cutting $880 billion dollars from Medicaid and food stamps/assistance hurts them drastically, and the disabled, and seniors in Nursing homes, and children...while taking more earnings of theirs to pay the tariff taxes levied.

It's a major shift on to the poor's backs, while giving millionaires and billionaires a tax break that was scheduled to expire.... Once again, Robinhood in reverse....and the wealthiest make out with more, and the poorest make out with less.
 
Tariffs they will pay in the price of goods, is added taxes for a good portion if not most all, of their income.

Cutting $880 billion dollars from Medicaid and food stamps/assistance hurts them drastically, and the disabled, and seniors in homes, and children...while taking more earnings of theirs to pay the tariff taxes levied.

It's a major shift on to the poor's backs, while giving millionaires and billionaires a tax break that was scheduled to expire.... Once again, Robinhood in reverse....and the wealthiest make out with more, and the poorest make out with less.
the disabled ,elderly and disadvantaged children will lose no benefits ..
 
the disabled ,elderly and disadvantaged children will lose no benefits ..
You can not cut $880 BILLION(10yr)dollars from them, without cutting medical care and services, and food
for children, the disabled, seniors in nursing homes....and the disadvantaged working poor.
 
Last edited:
A flat tax rate is the answer

It'll never happen

And what rate would that be? And would you include any standard deduction which would make the tax somewhat progressive?

The usual figure I hear is 10%. A married couple with income of $140,000 this year and taking a standard deduction of $30,000 will owe $14,028 in taxes in 2025. A strict 10% with no deductions works nicely for those of us whose income is north of $140,000, but those making less won't be too happy.
 
I would let the 2017 tax cuts expire and revert to their 2016 rates for all income brackets. Cutting taxes enables the big spenders in Washington. If the voting public is not held accountable for their choices, there is no incentive to give the boot those who don't know how to handle money.
 
We have heard this story before.

It's about ETR.
Is this true >>>>>> ?

Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016—the year he was elected president—and 2017, his first year in office. The report also revealed that he paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the previous 15 years, largely due to reporting significant business losses that offset his income.
/---/ Thank the democRATs who wrote most of the tax code. Why didn't they change it when they had all three branches? The answer is that uber rich democRAT rich donors take advantage of those tax laws.
 
The answer is The Senate. The Republican filibuster prevented the changes...2/3s of votes needed by senators to get anything past.
/---/ Thank the democRATs who wrote most of the tax code. Why didn't they change it when they had all three branches? The answer is that uber rich democRAT rich donors take advantage of those tax laws.
 
Actually 60 votes not 67. Unless its "reconciliation" then you just need a majority.
/—-/ Figures. When it comes to taxing their rich donors, democRATs are all hat and no cattle.
 
Back
Top Bottom