How about A Nice Compromise?

Many envious proggies say we ought to go back to the 91% tax structure in place during Ike's administration as this would spread the wealth around.

Whether that's a good idea can be debated, but let's step past that.

Put the tax code back to where it was on Jan. 1, 1961 and
Put the regulatory code back to where it was on Jan. 1, 1961.

Give some, get some.

 

Probably would solve many problems sadly it will never happen do you think the wealthy will stand for this? The only reason I poin to that side is they were the orginal ones that had the money to lobby congress cause it certianly wasnt the poor.

 

No. go to a flat or consumption tax, then it is fair for all and believe or not the government would get more revenue.

 

Taxcutter says:
I agree with a consumption based tax regime but proggies say it's "regressive."

 

They are not the only ones against it, those that hide their wealth and spending by using their company accounts are very against the idea.
I once heard someone ask Bush (Jr) if he would pass a flat tax he said send the bill to me and I will consider it, no one ever did. His legacy would be far different had he passed one. Why is no Repubs or Dems are pushing for a Tax Reform Bill, psssssst they are ALL rich.

 

Sounds fine to me.

 

It's not so much that they are rich, it's that the tax code gives them huge powers that they would not otherwise have. Congress historically abhors any legislation that reduces their power and control over the people, even if it is the right thing to do for the country. We will not see any meaningful reform of the tax code until we start sending people to Washington with that specific mission, and sending people HOME from Washington who obstruct it.

A consumption based tax system, like the FairTax (though it has its problems), would be a great improvement.

 

Taxcutter says:
Screw 'em. They get zero income tax in return for a consumption based tax.

 

Both leaving the nation with a government far outside Constitutional bounds on both fronts.

Does an oncologist deliberately cut out only half a tumor?

Repeal the 16th Amendment, replace with a national retail sales tax.

Repeal those provisions of federal law in violation of the Constitution, and establish a mandatory re-authorization process in which all federal non-defense programs are either re-authorized by Congressional vote every session of Congress, or they are discontinued if the vote for continuation fails to garner a majority in both Houses.

THAT's how fiscal solvency is restored.

 

The "wealthy"?

You think the Obama-loving parasitic maggots would support seeing their precious stolen weflare check vanish?

You are aware that there's more welfare maggots than those evil "rich" people, aren't you?

Maggots on welfare should not be allowed to vote until their loans are repaid.

 

Because it is. If you look at the economics of the situation, it's highly regressive.

 

Taxcutter says:
Regressive and progressive don't matter.

 

What matters is that there's NOT ONE WORD in the Sixteenth Amendment altering the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth, meaning that the Congress cannot craft tax laws that treat people unequally.

Besides, "progressive" is only socialist-speak for "socialist".

 

No, it's not.

Poor people should be saving money.

Taxes on retail sales will encourage poor people to save their money by forcing them to decide what they truly need and what they merely want. By spending wisely they'll save money, which they can use to put their children through college (a taxpayer isn't supposed to put someone else's spawn through college, that's what parental responsibility is all about), or to pay off debt they shouldn't be incurring anyway, and moving up the economic ladder by thrift and hard work, which is how things are supposed to be.

What is "regressive" is punishing people who own businesses and employ people. Stealing money from them is the most obvious reason why the labor participation rate under KIng Obama is at it's lowest since the reign of That Idiot Carter.

Which do you prefer, punished rich people or employed middle-class people?

You ain't gonna get both. You've got what you said you wanted in the election, don't you like it?

 

No, flat taxes are regressive as hell. No thank you.

This is what flat tax looks like:



- - - Updated - - -

One has to UNDERSTAND economics to recognize it. That is the problem in this country.

 

Here's an idea:

A CONSUMPTION based economy doesn't thrive when people have no incentive to CONSUME. Sales taxes as the only form of tax is contrary to this....

If anything, sales taxes should be lower and income tax should be more progressive.

 

How is that different from anything now? Majority of the tax burden from bottom income earners are in the form of sales and excise taxes. It's much more if you include FICA, State and City taxes if you live where I live.

But I can see why you believe the current tax arrangement is much better.

 

Actually I think the wealthy would love to get those deductions back. No one paid those kind of high tax rates.

 

Bingo, reversion to pre 1986 passive loss shelters would be a hoot to have back. Due to shelters, the high brackets were totally meaningless. 1040s and requisite schedules were one helluva sight more complicated to boot. Of course leftists just see the high brackets and translate that into a "free 70" TV" or somesuch other free stuff pork nugget.

 

Nope that is not how it looks everyone pays the same percentage meaning the rich pay more than the poor.

 

"Payroll taxes" or FICA are premiums for SS and disability insurance. Do you want to eliminate those withholds and cancel Social Security? I agree that sales and fuel taxes are all regressive and should be replaced with progressive income taxes to fund all levels of government.

 

Sure...

Or we can keep it the same. The issue with the tax system is not the excise taxes.

 

Sorry, wrong graph. My bad.

I'm having trouble replicating a flat income tax graph, actually. Most states that use it have an earned income tax credit built in.

Anyway, the idea is that flat taxes are regressive unless you have something to offset the extra burden low income workers have from sales and property taxes. Milk is going to cost $X, no matter what your income is. Therefore, the lower wage earner gets socked higher once again.

Flat tax only works with a basic income tax credit (commonly called negative income tax).

 

Clearly the tax rates over time have nothing to do with this:

 

It has everything to do with it. There were less income earners reported among the top 10% because of the tax rates, as people were either sheltering their income, engaging in ridiculous schemes to lower their effective tax rates, or simply not reporting their income.

Once the Tax Reform Act of 1986 passed, that all changed. Most of all people stopped coming up with stupid ways to lose money simply to get a 100% tax write off.