The problem:over next 40 yrs USA budget will be $566Trillion at current rate BUT...

[tooAlive]

.

You don't seem to realize that the money that influences our pols won't allow any so called flat tax ever. So your idea won't ever happen. So it's easy to be pro something that will never happen. How about we start with closing the loopholes we already have instead of reinventing the wheel as a first step?

And you think they'll happily close the loopholes?

Happily? No, but itll be easier than your idea of starting from scratch.

I wouldn't support the closing of loopholes unless they were to significantly cut tax rates across the board.

In any case, it's a long shot. Both for closing loopholes or significantly cutting rates.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lowering the tax rates is what got us into this mess. Not only that but America can't endure with taxes lowered even more than they ever have been in history. Do you think less taxes will help or hurt America and maintaining the American lifestyle?

 

[tooAlive]

YOU idiots that want to CLOSE the loopholes!!

Let me rephrase myself.

I believe in closing loopholes ONLY if a new taxation system is put in place with much lower rates. Ideally a flat tax for everybody.

If loopholes were closed, we wouldn't need to pay such ridiculously high rates in the first place. That's the point I'm trying to get at.

OK FLAT TAX people suggest 20% on consumption not INCOME...
So over the next 40 years the total income projected is over $209 trillion.
Assuming ALL $209 trillion is consumed: tax on $209 of 20% yields $41 trillion.

Still far short of the $115 trillion if spending continues at the 5.6% rate.


To equal the 20% flat tax revenue of $41 trillion the budget must actually decline by 5.1% per year.

Oh, spending would definitely have to come down.

Absolutely no question about it.

 

[tooAlive]

Lowering the tax rates is what got us into this mess. Not only that but America can't endure with taxes lowered even more than they ever have been in history. Do you think less taxes will help or hurt America and maintaining the American lifestyle?

Then how do you explain record tax revenue?



Tax revenue to hit record this year. So is spending 'the problem'? - CSMonitor.com

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

so when will Obama speak of the 100 trillion or so unfunded liabilities? bad enough he never mentions his 17 trillion dollar debt.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lowering the tax rates is what got us into this mess. Not only that but America can't endure with taxes lowered even more than they ever have been in history. Do you think less taxes will help or hurt America and maintaining the American lifestyle?

Then how do you explain record tax revenue?



Tax revenue to hit record this year. So is spending 'the problem'? - CSMonitor.com

Are you really suggesting that we have record high taxes? If not, then what?

 

[healthmyths]

Lowering the tax rates is what got us into this mess. Not only that but America can't endure with taxes lowered even more than they ever have been in history. Do you think less taxes will help or hurt America and maintaining the American lifestyle?

OK.. Let's try this again...
A company has $10 million in sales. Employees 20 people.
After all expenses salaries,etc. Company reports income before taxes $1,000,000. 10%
Pays current tax rate of 26% after deductions (Which was Obama's rate by the way.. after he took $122,000 in capital loss tax loophole!)
So tax payment is $260,000.
Owner has $740,000 left.

But if the taxes were 15% or $150,000 owner would have $850,000!

Now what do you think that owner does with that net profit?
Does he bury it in the back yard or under his mattress? Does he go out and buy a yacht?

But say he has an opportunity to increase business say 10% or $11 million.

To do that he hires 2 more people @$40,000 or $80,000 from the $110,000 increase in profits.

Pays employer's share of payroll taxes which adds to the tax bases another $12,000.

Leaves after all expenses, $1,100,000 (10%) in profit instead of $1 million before.
So what is the tax revenue from 15% on $1,100,000? $165,000.
What was the tax revenue before tax reduction? $260,000.
Govt. gets $95,000 less revenue at 15% vs 26% right?

Wrong!
YOU and others forget the multiplier affect that says for every $1 million spent in economy increases by 1.18 or $1,180,000.
Each $1 million adds 7.7 workers at $40,000 means another $47,000 in payroll taxes!
So now that leaves from $95,000 @ 26% tax rate after subtracting new payroll taxes from 9.7 workers added leaves $47,000.
Remember 9.7 workers no longer need $300 a week for 99 weeks or $288,000 the govt. would pay out in UNEMPLOYMENT benefits!
www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Thus the NEW tax rate of 15% generates:
$165,000 in company tax payments.
47,000 in new payroll tax revenue from 9.7 new workers going off unemployment benefits of $300/week for 99 weeks or:
$288,000 in savings from govt. not providing unemployment checks!
$500,090 in total TAX REVENUE and government savings
VERSUS
$260,000 tax revenue at 26%


Pretty conclusive evidence that lowering tax rate from 26% to 15% provides $500,090 in revenue and savings while
26% tax rate yields only $260,000.

Proven. Case closed! Lower corporate TAXES!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

We had that experiment during the Bush years. The tax holiday or repatriation which dropped companies tax rate to 5% (I believe) and what happened. The companies fired Ppl took the money paid themselves and their stockholders wonderfully and then asked for more tax holidays so this time, foreal, they will create jobs. Only this time they pinky swear promise that this time will be different.

 

[tooAlive]

Lowering the tax rates is what got us into this mess. Not only that but America can't endure with taxes lowered even more than they ever have been in history. Do you think less taxes will help or hurt America and maintaining the American lifestyle?

Then how do you explain record tax revenue?



Tax revenue to hit record this year. So is spending 'the problem'? - CSMonitor.com

Are you really suggesting that we have record high taxes? If not, then what?

I'm suggesting that we have record high tax revenue.

Let me explain something to you. Back when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, the government didn't generate any additional revenue because of it. Contrary to leftist popular belief.

How do you explain to me that with some of the lowest tax rates we've had in recent history, our government is generating a record amount of revenue?

That just doesn't make any sense. You see, higher tax rates don't necessarily mean more revenue for the government. Otherwise, we would've generated the most revenue during the 90% tax rate days. And that wasn't the case.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sure just ingore the population and your theory would be correct.

 

[healthmyths]

We had that experiment during the Bush years. The tax holiday or repatriation which dropped companies tax rate to 5% (I believe) and what happened. The companies fired Ppl took the money paid themselves and their stockholders wonderfully and then asked for more tax holidays so this time, foreal, they will create jobs. Only this time they pinky swear promise that this time will be different.

Obviously YOU forgot WHAT happened during Bush years.. oh say just little events that had very little to do with the facts!
Are you ignoring the 4 MAJOR events that is today costing $100 billion a year in Federal tax revenue!
1)Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in losses and 300,000 jobs
2) 9/11 cost $2 trillion in businesses, market airlines closed 3 days.. Wall st closed 10 day and 145,000 jobs!
3) Worst Hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS in history $1 trillion losses and 400,000 jobs lost.
4) 9/18/08 Economic terrorist attack with $500 billion taken out of $4 trillion Money market that CAUSED everyone to be concerned about the WORLD's economy collapsing!
All of these events had SEVERE economic consequences THAT if tax rates hadn't been lowered in 2003 it would be even more catastrophic!

Why has NO ONE ever ever responded when I put these REAL EVENTS into a thread?
Are you all that totally ignorant of what happened even you conservatives that have said "Bush spent like a drunken sailor".. don't seem to understand the consequences of the above!

The IRS calls it Net Operating Loss NOL..
Eligible losses, farming losses, qualified disaster losses, and specified liability losses, defined next, qualify for longer carryback periods. Publication 536 (2012), Net Operating Losses (NOLs) for Individuals, Estates, and Trusts

This means those above events has reduced tax revenue
A NOL is first used to offset income in the year of the NOL, but if the NOL is greater than the income, then it can be used to offset income in other years. Most businesses and individuals can carry back their losses to offset their income in the 2 previous years, but farmers have a carryback period of 5 years. If the NOL is not used up in the previous years, then they can be carried forward to offset income in the future years for up to 20 years. Any NOL remaining after 20 years cannot be deducted. However, the taxpayer can irrevocably elect to forgo the carryback period and use the NOL to offset future income only, which may be judicious if the taxpayer expects to earn more money in the future or if tax rates are anticipated to be higher.

Nearly $60 billion a year is NOT paid in taxes due to the above $8 trillion in losses by businesses, individuals lost money in dot.com, deaths, destruction of assets!
Yet not one of you are accounting for that from these 4 momentous events in the Bush years!

 

[tooAlive]

Sure just ingore the population and your theory would be correct.

It's not my theory.

Hauser?s Law | Hoover Institution

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax-rate increase would reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s law says it would also lower tax revenue. That is a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich—if they knew about it.

Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively. In a Wall Street Journal article in 1993, he stated that “no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5 percent of GDP.” What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.

The chart on this page, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser’s law. The federal tax yield (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5 percent, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91 percent to the present 35 percent. This should cut the Gordian knot of tax policy debate.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who's theory it is wasn't part of the debate.

As for the tax holiday...corps asked for them claiming they would create jobs. I assume they are all aware of NOL's but they made the claim anyway. So they asked for it to create jobs, got it, then pocketed the money. But you promise that it'll be different this time because...UH....it just will. Maybe you're working on the theory that greed will no longer exist. I dunno