To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

[UllysesS.Archer]

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

 

[PeoplePower]

Sales drive the economy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[SAYIT]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

Ambitious peeps.

 

[Nosmo King]

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

 

[whitehall]

How do you put "more disposable income" into the hands of the middle class? By destroying the corporations that fuel the GDP? Maybe lowering taxes and the cost of energy and eliminating government regulations that strangle big and small business is a better answer. Gigantic federal bureaucracies that skim confiscated taxpayer dollars and laws created by politicians who never had a job that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars is not the answer.

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

The hypocrite left is so clueless that they cheer when the DOW spikes during a democrat administration while the DOW is an indication of corporate wealth that they despise. The median income for the middle class has dropped a whopping 6% since Obama took office. The middle class depends on low energy cost more than any demographic but the administration seems clueless while they support failing solar energy corporations and bird killing windmills and battery operated cars that nobody wants except wealthy liberals who park them in the garage and pat themselves for being so caring to the environment.

 

[Nosmo King]

How do you put "more disposable income" into the hands of the middle class? By destroying the corporations that fuel the GDP? Maybe lowering taxes and the cost of energy and eliminating government regulations that strangle big and small business is a better answer. Gigantic federal bureaucracies that skim confiscated taxpayer dollars and laws created by politicians who never had a job that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars is not the answer.

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

The hypocrite left is so clueless that they cheer when the DOW spikes during a democrat administration while the DOW is an indication of corporate wealth that they despise. The median income for the middle class has dropped a whopping 6% since Obama took office. The middle class depends on low energy cost more than any demographic but the administration seems clueless while they support failing solar energy corporations and bird killing windmills and battery operated cars that nobody wants except wealthy liberals who park them in the garage and pat themselves for being so caring to the environment.

Liberals don't despise corporate wealth. Liberals despise the way corporate wealth is sequestered among the very wealthy and never really goes to those who have EARNED that wealth for the corporations: the actual workers.

 

[SAYIT]

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

I guess if you live long enough even the improbable might occur. We finally agree on something. Flat tax is too radical an idea for most Americans but with the $30,000 exemption - a number I have floated - the poorest would be spared the brunt of it. Everyone gets that exemption then pays 10% - 12% (TBD) or whatever on all other income. Without other exemptions and loopholes only the corporate accountants and lawyers would survive and Americans would save time and money. It's a win-win.

 

[Darkwind]

If consumer spending is responsible for greater than 70% of our economic growth, what have policies like out sourcing, casino financial systems, unregulated asset trading, elimination of collective bargaining and cut backs to the social safety net contributed to the strengthening of the Middle Class?

How can lowering the tax rate on corporate gains (money not earned but risked) and the marginal tax rate of those actually EARNING more than $1,000,000 benefit the majority Middle Class and poor?

I'd be interested in hearing about this term given the nth degree that trading is regulated.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

 

[Nosmo King]

If consumer spending is responsible for greater than 70% of our economic growth, what have policies like out sourcing, casino financial systems, unregulated asset trading, elimination of collective bargaining and cut backs to the social safety net contributed to the strengthening of the Middle Class?

How can lowering the tax rate on corporate gains (money not earned but risked) and the marginal tax rate of those actually EARNING more than $1,000,000 benefit the majority Middle Class and poor?

I'd be interested in hearing about this term given the nth degree that trading is regulated.

Derivatives and mortgage bundling. Bank (which should be in the business of savings and loans) traded unbacked mortgage derivatives and got burned in 2008 thus bringing the financial sector and our economy to its knees. I'm sure you have heard of that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Great points unfortunatley conservatives like to deal with "Not"

So they'll usually respond like "I'm NOT saying that but...*no solution just complaints*"

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

I agree. Lets make the rates equal for everyone.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

10% is way too high.

Let's do 5% at the most.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

As all spending would be subject to taxes, a record of expenditures is provided to the IRS. Once an individual's spending exceeds $30,000 annually, a flat tax could then apply to any amount over the exempted $30,000.

The poor spend more of their income on necessities. A family of four earning $25,000 will spend a far larger percentage of their income on food, utilities, clothing, school supplies, transportation and housing than a family of four making $250,000.

 

[deltex1]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Nosmo..he be sneakin fo sum mo free stuff...

 

[deltex1]

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

As all spending would be subject to taxes, a record of expenditures is provided to the IRS. Once an individual's spending exceeds $30,000 annually, a flat tax could then apply to any amount over the exempted $30,000.

The poor spend more of their income on necessities. A family of four earning $25,000 will spend a far larger percentage of their income on food, utilities, clothing, school supplies, transportation and housing than a family of four making $250,000.

Maybe dat...maybe crack...

 

[SAYIT]

Do away with the income tax, and make everything a flat tax, only on what you spend, with the exceptions being basic utility costs, which include, rent/house payment(if you are already paying on a house, but a new house would get taxed), electric bill, water bill, heating costs(if any). Everything else gets the tax.

Let's say 10%, If a family's income is 2K a month, they pay 400 a month rent, 150 electric, 100 water, they have electric heat so no heating costs. That's 650 a month they pay no tax on, leaving them 1350 for their other bills, and spending money.

If they don't spend the money, they pay no tax. If they spend, they get taxed. The poor would be paying less taxes than the rich, simply because they have less to spend. The richer will spend more, investing in houses, cars, business, whatever, everything else you buy you get taxed, including stocks and bonds, food, medicine(that would be the hang up), new house purchases, cars, basically everything.

If that is to much, we could always include medicine and food as non taxable, but it makes the tax rate a lot higher on everything else.

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

I suspect NK meant the first $30,000 in income and all - including the wealthy - would get that exemption. Those making $30,000 or less/yr aren't paying any fed tax anyway.

 

[Nosmo King]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Nosmo..he be sneakin fo sum mo free stuff...

A) I work for a living

B) I have a Pittsburgh accent

 

[Darkwind]

If consumer spending is responsible for greater than 70% of our economic growth, what have policies like out sourcing, casino financial systems, unregulated asset trading, elimination of collective bargaining and cut backs to the social safety net contributed to the strengthening of the Middle Class?

How can lowering the tax rate on corporate gains (money not earned but risked) and the marginal tax rate of those actually EARNING more than $1,000,000 benefit the majority Middle Class and poor?

I'd be interested in hearing about this term given the nth degree that trading is regulated.

Derivatives and mortgage bundling. Bank (which should be in the business of savings and loans) traded unbacked mortgage derivatives and got burned in 2008 thus bringing the financial sector and our economy to its knees. I'm sure you have heard of that.

I asked a specific question. What assets were not regulated? These mortgage bundles you speak of were regulated.

Asset trading is the most regulated aspect of any financial institution. I get it that you hate banks. What I don't get is the nonsense that none of this was regulated.

 

[Darkwind]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Nosmo..he be sneakin fo sum mo free stuff...

A) I work for a living

B) I have a Pittsburgh accent

That's one strike against you.