Owning a $40m home is disgusting...

I double posted the same link. This is the link for inflation.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx

Another link which is identical to yours but easier to read. Do the math and check the differences between the years prior to 1983 and after 1983.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx

The reason the 40s through the 60s were a boom was because there was literally zero unemployment because of the war effort and because of massive spending by returning troops who had money saved up and also things like the GI Bill and the guaranteed housing loans. Virtually every economist out there says that WW2 is the primary reason we got out of the great depression. If not for the war the economy would be just as crappy as it was in the 30s and half the economists consider the New Deal to be a failure. Also we were literally the only manufacturing nation of any importance for several years since Europe had to be rebuilt and Asia hadn't emerged yet. If you wanted to by stuff you had to buy from us, having a monopoly kind of gives you a tiny economic edge.

The number of millionares as a total number and per capita was far lower in the 50s that it was in the 80s onward where they double in only a few years. Thus having the high rate didn't have that much of an impact as it does today. There are a lot more millionares and high wager earners now than there were back then.

As for the proposals exempting the first 30k I didn't say I agreed with them. Everyone should have some skin in the game and it should be the same rate so that if the feds want to increase taxes they have to answer to ALL taxpayers not just sections of them. This picking and choosing winners and losers in the tax game has got to stop, it will destroy the country down the road. Hell Aristotle even recognized that once the people learned they could vote themselves the purse then it is all over with. As it is fewer and fewer people are supporting more and more people with social programs that were not intended for alot of recipients currently getting them. In my own state with Badger Care people with available employer provided insurance were opting into it even though it is a service meant for poor people. Taxes are already unfair for lower income people specifically the FICA tax and sin taxes which overwhelmingly hurt poor people. Hell you could make the argument that traffic tickets hurt poor people more. That is true of anything that costs money. The reason they put it in was obviously for political reasons as a pure flat tax would probably never pass. I am for 10% flat tax and possible a consumption tax as well. Most of you taxes should be paid locally where people can exert the most control over how it is spent. The Feds should get the least amount from everyone unlike how it is currently where they get the most from individuals. That is simply upside down.

 

Ah, you've been observing the "Limousine Liberals", haven't you...? They live fat and full in resplendent luxury, finery, and plenty -- while tasking their tax attorneys and tax accounts to be certain to take full advantage of all the numerous loopholes, shelters, exemptions, and exceptions in the U. S. Tax Code that insure they will pay little or nothing in taxes!.

"Hey, let the middle-class, bourgeois "climber" bastards pay all the taxes", is their attitude.... And they carefully guard their flanks with masses of poor voters they provide with a Welfare State subsistence -- the "useful idiots" that the Communist overlords sneered at. Make no mistake: Obama and all the other socialist idiots can blow around all day about "taxing the 1%", but until the U. S. Tax Code is completely re-written to get rid of ALL loopholes, shelters, and exemptions, the "rich" will NEVER actually PAY their fair share -- no matter what the tax "rate" or "bracket" is supposed to be....

 

Lower incomes that barely have kept up with inflation, if that.

I disagree with your view. I like living in a country were hordes of the aged and infirm aren't living under freeways begging at stoplights.

 

Freedoms come and freedoms go. Adam lost 50% of his freedom when Eve came along.

Newt Gingrich once said when asked about 9mpg SUVs "isn't that what freedom is all about?" Nah, Newt, it ain't.

 

You still haven't said why a fair flat tax system with most of the taxes at the local level is going to hurt the poor more. You keep making these hyperbolic statements about the end of the poor and the elderly. I remember the same predictions from you lefties when Clinton and the Republicans did welfare reform. You were completely wrong then and you are wrong now. Show me specifically now a flat tax hurts low income people more than high income people. Everyone is paying the same percentage and the rich put the most in the pot.

 

I explained in post #74.

Now if you are not talking about a true flat tax, but a progressive tax in which there is a deduction for the poorer so they are paying less or no tax, then I agree that mitigates against hurting the poorer.

 

I would be fine with that because I am aware that a true flat tax would never get enough political support. I still think that they should pay something perhaps a smaller 2 or 3% rate but they should pay something. The law should also be written that if you want to raise taxes you have to raise them for everyone and not just a specific group of people. If you raise the flat tax from 10% to 11% then the low end bracket goes from 2% to 2.2% (directly proportional). That would make politicians look first and saving money in other areas versus just automatically raising taxes all the time. In California and in Illinois they just raise taxes willy nilly and never do any cost controls which is why they are in such horrible financial shape.

The best tax would be a consumption tax with exemptions on food an other necessities like diapers etc. Unfortunately that will NEVER happen.

 

A flat tax of 10% would leave to massive deficits.

California had huge deficit problems but with a combination of tax increases and limiting spending now has a balanced budget. A lesson for the rest of us.

A consumption tax is regressive. An even better way to help the richest get richer at the expense of everyone else.

 

I am in favor of a progressive flat tax. In my opinion everyone pays the same rate for each dollar made. Open up a national sales tax as well so that those on the bottom pay something.

Also rates could be lowered so that all earned income and parent tax credits are killed!

 

A consumption tax with food and necessities (like how most states do their sales taxes) is not regressive in the slightest. It affects the rich far more because they buy more nonessentials than poor people which is where consumption taxes are at.

California is no where near a balanced budget. They deliberately left out their unfunded expenditures and they also way overestimated their returns on their investments where their retirement and pension funds are located. They also got huge one time chunk of change from Facebook going public.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/california-slipping-toward-bankruptcy-again/article/1159341

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingne...eles-not-going-bankrupt-like-other-california

and there are a ton of other links about them going bankrupt. The state legislatures have resorted to pillage spending that used to go to localities which is part of the reason why over a dozen cities in CA are bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy. Don't even try and defend them because it just makes you look silly.

 

I disagree with much of that. I have a healthy consumption myself and I am not rich. The fact is it will more hoarding. Well let me see? I can stop buying the lamb chops and get chicken! Why buy the town car when I can just get a Charger? Forget the 60G van I will get a stripped Econoline. I can store more money and just make more private purchases.

 

You've made an oxymoron. If there is a "progressive flat tax" with an exemption every one does not pay the same rate for each dollar made.

Open up a national sales tax as well so that those on the bottom pay something.

Also rates could be lowered so that all earned income and parent tax credits are killed![/QUOTE]

Great plan, if your goal is to make the richest even richer at the expense of everyone else.

But they don't need any more help.

 

Absolutely not. A progressive flat tax means you keep a progressive scale and do away with all deductions and credits.

It would work like this (just throwing numbers out there) -

There is no more filing status! Every working individual is taxed as an individual.
If you make 0-30Kpy you pay no federal income tax. One or one thousand kids make no difference.
31-60K 5%
61-100K 10%
101-250K 20%
251-1000K 30%
1001K-5000K 40%
5001K-15000K45%
15001K-500M 50%
500+M 60%

That would be on individuals. And the Use tax would be implemented as well.

This would cost me thousands but would save a bit of money for single responsible people. I have kids and others should not have a higher tax rate because I breed.

 

OK, I'm not sure I agree you're using the correct terminology, but I see what your view is now.

 

I am disgusted that I cannot aford a $40 million house. It is disgusting.

- - - Updated - - -

I am disgusted that I cannot aford a $40 million house. It is disgusting.

 

A flat ax is just that. One size fits all. Well a progressive flat tax is pretty much the same. You pay the exact same tax as anybody else who makes the same income. But every americans first 30K would be income tax free. If the government wants to stimulate some sectors of the economy they remove the tax. Housing? The tax takes a holiday.

 

A flat tax is just that. One size fits all. Well a progressive flat tax is pretty much the same. You pay the exact same tax as anybody else who makes the same income. But every Americans first 30K would be income tax free. If the government wants to stimulate some sectors of the economy they remove the tax. Housing? The tax takes a holiday.

 

A flat tax commonly refers to the same rate of tax applied to all levels of income. But I don't want to argue semantics.

 

If you've got it, flaunt it. You don't owe anybody (*)(*)(*)(*). All successful people have haters. That's why they're haters; because they're not successful.

Don't player hate, congratulate.

 

I should congratulate Mitt Romney that because of the special tax laws passed by Republicans he gets to pay a lower rate of tax that the typical median income family?

Pass.

 

No I disagree with the standard flat tax but a flat tax taken in a progressive way is a good thing. Imagine less than ten% paid on 100K!

 

You only hate him because you're not him. Don't lie to yourself. You'd be living the exact same way if you had his money.

 

Where do you get the bizarre notion I hate him?

Jeez the things you guys fabricate to try to defend your position.