What Ought the Progressive Individual Taxes Be?

Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.

Petitions in the Process:

On Change.org: Support the Balance of Progressive Taxes for Prosperity!
On the White House's "We the People: Balance the Progressive Income Taxes for Prosperity
 
Last edited:

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
I took the time. Let me ask you a honest question: do you really think a rich person will pay taxes at those rates? Cuz I don't think so, I would say you'd have the following outcomes:

1. Rich people would make huge donations to tax free foundations, municipal bonds, and any other tax shelters, instead of investing that money in new businesses that are main driver for creating jobs. Result: at best more of what we got now, skating along on the cusp of another recession. I think it'd be more likely that a new tax policy such as you outline would be enough to crater our economy.

2. Or maybe they invest overseas, creaing new businesses and jobs somewhere else and keep the profits over there to avoid your high taxes. Same result. Some of 'em even sell out, pack up, and leave the US altogether. You sure as hell aren't going to attract foreign investors to come here, I can tell you that.

3. Some rich people would defer compensation to the future when your tax rates are reduced by a super majority on both houses of Congress and a republican president. Which would be as soon as the next election, and the democratic party would be set back for a generation.


Many liberals think fondly back to the days in the 1950s when the marginal tax rate was 91% and dream about returning to those wonderful days of abundant revenue. Think of all that extra money we could spend! Only one problem - total federal revenue during those years hovered between 18% and 20% of GDP, and the lib/dems want to spend closer to 25%. So, you raise the rates but guess what, you ain't going to get the extra money you think you are. The rich people just ain't going to pay it, they'll hide it, put it overseas, or whatever.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,219
Reaction score
23,328
Points
2,180
I took the time. Let me ask you a honest question: do you really think a rich person will pay taxes at those rates? Cuz I don't think so, I would say you'd have the following outcomes:

1. Rich people would make huge donations to tax free foundations, municipal bonds, and any other tax shelters, instead of investing that money in new businesses that are main driver for creating jobs. Result: at best more of what we got now, skating along on the cusp of another recession. I think it'd be more likely that a new tax policy such as you outline would be enough to crater our economy.

2. Or maybe they invest overseas, creaing new businesses and jobs somewhere else and keep the profits over there to avoid your high taxes. Same result. Some of 'em even sell out, pack up, and leave the US altogether. You sure as hell aren't going to attract foreign investors to come here, I can tell you that.

3. Some rich people would defer compensation to the future when your tax rates are reduced by a super majority on both houses of Congress and a republican president. Which would be as soon as the next election, and the democratic party would be set back for a generation.


Many liberals think fondly back to the days in the 1950s when the marginal tax rate was 91% and dream about returning to those wonderful days of abundant revenue. Think of all that extra money we could spend! Only one problem - total federal revenue during those years hovered between 18% and 20% of GDP, and the lib/dems want to spend closer to 25%. So, you raise the rates but guess what, you ain't going to get the extra money you think you are. The rich people just ain't going to pay it, they'll hide it, put it overseas, or whatever.

Many people who have amassed their fortunes and no longer need to work would simply move overseas and take their money with them.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.
Apparently like you I believe that we have too few tax brackets.

I won't argue with your proposed rates since neither of us has crunched the numbers to see how much money either of our proposals would generate.

But I can agree with you in principle that we need to rethink the tax rates.

I do think, however, that imposing any taxes on folks making $10K is a mistake.

I understand, I suspect, WHY you propose to do that, and am somewhat sympathetic, too.

But nobody can really live on $10K in this nation. Taxing the destitute just doesn't seem like a good idea.

And I am not sure that we'd need a 48% top bracket, either.

We're really need to crunch the numbers to see what rates we'd need to pay the bills.

What we'd need is a proforma spread sheet where we could plug in the real reported incomes to see if your system would generate enough dough.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
I took the time. Let me ask you a honest question: do you really think a rich person will pay taxes at those rates? Cuz I don't think so, I would say you'd have the following outcomes:

1. Rich people would make huge donations to tax free foundations, municipal bonds, and any other tax shelters, instead of investing that money in new businesses that are main driver for creating jobs. Result: at best more of what we got now, skating along on the cusp of another recession. I think it'd be more likely that a new tax policy such as you outline would be enough to crater our economy.

2. Or maybe they invest overseas, creaing new businesses and jobs somewhere else and keep the profits over there to avoid your high taxes. Same result. Some of 'em even sell out, pack up, and leave the US altogether. You sure as hell aren't going to attract foreign investors to come here, I can tell you that.

3. Some rich people would defer compensation to the future when your tax rates are reduced by a super majority on both houses of Congress and a republican president. Which would be as soon as the next election, and the democratic party would be set back for a generation.


Many liberals think fondly back to the days in the 1950s when the marginal tax rate was 91% and dream about returning to those wonderful days of abundant revenue. Think of all that extra money we could spend! Only one problem - total federal revenue during those years hovered between 18% and 20% of GDP, and the lib/dems want to spend closer to 25%. So, you raise the rates but guess what, you ain't going to get the extra money you think you are. The rich people just ain't going to pay it, they'll hide it, put it overseas, or whatever.

Many people who have amassed their fortunes and no longer need to work would simply move overseas and take their money with them.
Some would do that, I do not doubt.

But the stupendously wealthy really wouldn't be able to divest all their US holdings to completely evade US taxation.

They could move offshore, they could become citizens of some tax shelter, too.

But the US based investments that they couldn't turn into foreign investments would still be taxed.

Atlas isn't quite ready to entirely shrug off the USA.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.
Apparently like you I believe that we have too few tax brackets.

I won't argue with your proposed rates since neither of us has crunched the numbers to see how much money either of our proposals would generate.

But I can agree with you in principle that we need to rethink the tax rates.

I do think, however, that imposing any taxes on folks making $10K is a mistake.

I understand, I suspect, WHY you propose to do that, and am somewhat sympathetic, too.

But nobody can really live on $10K in this nation. Taxing the destitute just doesn't seem like a good idea.

And I am not sure that we'd need a 48% top bracket, either.

We're really need to crunch the numbers to see what rates we'd need to pay the bills.

What we'd need is a proforma spread sheet where we could plug in the real reported incomes to see if your system would generate enough dough.
I agree with your statements and to be honest with you I have calculated how much revenue would bring; it's a must to tax those who make 10,000 USD but at much lower rate which is what I proposed at 4%. I've did the math countless times and mirrored the tax brackets we've had in the past but balanced them. I hope that you sign the petition anyway because they don't necessary have to take my specific tax proposal but just take my words, the words of the People about balancing our progressive taxes into account.
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
I took the time. Let me ask you a honest question: do you really think a rich person will pay taxes at those rates? Cuz I don't think so, I would say you'd have the following outcomes:

1. Rich people would make huge donations to tax free foundations, municipal bonds, and any other tax shelters, instead of investing that money in new businesses that are main driver for creating jobs. Result: at best more of what we got now, skating along on the cusp of another recession. I think it'd be more likely that a new tax policy such as you outline would be enough to crater our economy.

2. Or maybe they invest overseas, creaing new businesses and jobs somewhere else and keep the profits over there to avoid your high taxes. Same result. Some of 'em even sell out, pack up, and leave the US altogether. You sure as hell aren't going to attract foreign investors to come here, I can tell you that.

3. Some rich people would defer compensation to the future when your tax rates are reduced by a super majority on both houses of Congress and a republican president. Which would be as soon as the next election, and the democratic party would be set back for a generation.


Many liberals think fondly back to the days in the 1950s when the marginal tax rate was 91% and dream about returning to those wonderful days of abundant revenue. Think of all that extra money we could spend! Only one problem - total federal revenue during those years hovered between 18% and 20% of GDP, and the lib/dems want to spend closer to 25%. So, you raise the rates but guess what, you ain't going to get the extra money you think you are. The rich people just ain't going to pay it, they'll hide it, put it overseas, or whatever.

Many people who have amassed their fortunes and no longer need to work would simply move overseas and take their money with them.
Some would do that, I do not doubt.

But the stupendously wealthy really wouldn't be able to divest all their US holdings to completely evade US taxation.

They could move offshore, they could become citizens of some tax shelter, too.

But the US based investments that they couldn't turn into foreign investments would still be taxed.

Atlas isn't quite ready to entirely shrug off the USA.

True, sort of. I suspect the uberrich have already divested themselves of much of their US holdings when Obama got elected, I know I would have. I suspect these guys would've moved a big pile of their money into long term investments that you don't pay tax on until your realize the capital gains. Or, as I said they invested overseas in foreign companies.

Could they completely evade the higher tax rate? Probably not, but the gov't is not going to get nearly as much extra revenue as they think, nowhere near as much as they would if they left the current rates as is and made other changes to improve the business climate here. Lib/dems want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same size slice out of a bigger pie.
 

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.
I was looking at the chart....i think they are all too high.

The most should be 50% at the very top, thats half of what people EARN.

Those making under 50k should have their rate under 10% but over 5%. Maybe cut back accodingly on all the brackets in-between to fit into my two end brackets and, even though its not uniform like the constitution's language says taxes ought to be, I could support it.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.
I was looking at the chart....i think they are all too high.

The most should be 50% at the very top, thats half of what people EARN.

Those making under 50k should have their rate under 10% but over 5%. Maybe cut back accodingly on all the brackets in-between to fit into my two end brackets and, even though its not uniform like the constitution's language says taxes ought to be, I could support it.
Example:

Let's Say You're Single without Children Dependent on You.

You Make $174,000 a Year Because You're a Congressman.

The Common Calculations that the IRS Uses is This:

$174,000 times 44% = $76,560 (This is How Much the Federal Government Gets)
$76,560 - $174,000 = $97,440(This is How Much You'll Have Left)

Now, how many members in the House and the Senate? 435.

$76,560 times 435 = $33,303,600
 
Last edited:

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.
I was looking at the chart....i think they are all too high.

The most should be 50% at the very top, thats half of what people EARN.

Those making under 50k should have their rate under 10% but over 5%. Maybe cut back accodingly on all the brackets in-between to fit into my two end brackets and, even though its not uniform like the constitution's language says taxes ought to be, I could support it.
Example:

Let's Say You're Single without Children Dependent on You.

You Make 250,000 a Year Because You're a Congressman.

The Common Calculations that the IRS Uses is This:

$250,000 times 54% = $135,000 (This is How Much the Federal Government Gets)
$135,000 - $250,000 = $115,000 (This is How Much You'll Have Left)

What about state and local taxes? Property tax, sales tax, Social Security? There's places in America where $115k ain't a whole lot of money dude. I highly doubt a US Congressperson can live on that in DC.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
I was looking at the chart....i think they are all too high.

The most should be 50% at the very top, thats half of what people EARN.

Those making under 50k should have their rate under 10% but over 5%. Maybe cut back accodingly on all the brackets in-between to fit into my two end brackets and, even though its not uniform like the constitution's language says taxes ought to be, I could support it.
Example:

Let's Say You're Single without Children Dependent on You.

You Make 250,000 a Year Because You're a Congressman.

The Common Calculations that the IRS Uses is This:

$250,000 times 54% = $135,000 (This is How Much the Federal Government Gets)
$135,000 - $250,000 = $115,000 (This is How Much You'll Have Left)

What about state and local taxes? Property tax, sales tax, Social Security? There's places in America where $115k ain't a whole lot of money dude. I highly doubt a US Congressperson can live on that in DC.
Washington D.C. isn't a State.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,761
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Dear Centrist,
America was never meant to be a Socialist,Communist or Marxist country.
And if that tax code isn't socialist Marxism then I don't know what is.
We are suppose to be free from Federal Government and not be be robed by our Federal Government.
 

expat_panama

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
2,948
Reaction score
356
Points
130

It's been tried, and it didn't work very well.

What happened was that everyone talented enough to create enormous value came to simply stop half way though the year. This was true of especially gifted geniuses in the preforming arts as well as brilliant medical experts whose life saving talents were in tremendous demand. They all stopped short and millions lost out, a loss that in many cases caused horrible suffering.

Let's not.
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
Example:

Let's Say You're Single without Children Dependent on You.

You Make 250,000 a Year Because You're a Congressman.

The Common Calculations that the IRS Uses is This:

$250,000 times 54% = $135,000 (This is How Much the Federal Government Gets)
$135,000 - $250,000 = $115,000 (This is How Much You'll Have Left)

What about state and local taxes? Property tax, sales tax, Social Security? There's places in America where $115k ain't a whole lot of money dude. I highly doubt a US Congressperson can live on that in DC.
Washington D.C. isn't a State.

No shit, Sherlock. They still pay local taxes, no? I'll ask again, what about state and local taxes, and the other taxes? Geez dude, I can see the total tax hit for a person making $250k at 65% or higher. You really think it's fair to have $85,000 left out of $250,000?
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,674
Reaction score
16,093
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
No shit, Sherlock. They still pay local taxes, no? I'll ask again, what about state and local taxes, and the other taxes? Geez dude, I can see the total tax hit for a person making $250k at 65% or higher. You really think it's fair to have $85,000 left out of $250,000?
He wouldn't think it was fair if he made that much money, but since he is bred from failure he resents those that do. Typical Marxist.
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,090
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
This is a fiasco and the Dems are too stupid or don't care...
Attack the rich all you want you won't lay a glove on them.
They will just shut down for a while and will wait until things calm down.
The ones you will be hurting are the ones making over $200k
These are the folks you will hurt and they are not the frigging rich bastards you guys have a hard on for.

Dumb Asses....
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
No shit, Sherlock. They still pay local taxes, no? I'll ask again, what about state and local taxes, and the other taxes? Geez dude, I can see the total tax hit for a person making $250k at 65% or higher. You really think it's fair to have $85,000 left out of $250,000?
He wouldn't think it was fair if he made that much money, but since he is bred from failure he resents those that do. Typical Marxist.
I'll be faxing this to our leaders tomorrow.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,474
Points
1,830
That's because there is no amount of taxation that's fair. What's fair isn't what you earn it's what you have left. At an 85% tax rate, someone is still going to be making more than a janitor left with $20,000That's the part that's not fair. The fair thing is to tax someone making real money so that they get to have the same amount of disposable income as the janitor.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
That's because there is no amount of taxation that's fair. What's fair isn't what you earn it's what you have left. At an 85% tax rate, someone is still going to be making more than a janitor left with $20,000That's the part that's not fair. The fair thing is to tax someone making real money so that they get to have the same amount of disposable income as the janitor.
Somebody is catching on... :clap2:

Thanks, bro and I would love for you to sign the petition and share.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top