Wrong, as always! Your DEMANDS are NOT solutions! Onus is not on me to provide YOUR solutions, that is entirely YOUR problem!
No demands just solutions and even from the Brookings Institute as I cited which apparently have you stumped. So what are your solutions?
The same tax rate and the same deductions and credits as during the Eisenhower years. Why go back to that much more complicated tax system?
Playing devils advocate, why should they pay more because they earn more? I am for a flat tax on net income for all earners. If you make a $100.00/year you owe .10 and so on. Pretty easy. Accountants still in business, government gets their tax dollars and everyone pays their share. This only applies to ordinary income. As does the tax schedule shown above in this thread.
I will still make the case the rich who can will just repatriate to another country and take their wealth with them if you move to gut them nd do this before rhese laws take effect.
We the People will all be far better off WITHOUT the greed obsessed strip mining our economy for their own personal benefit and providing NOTHING in return.
Garbage. Income is always The Wrong Thing To Tax because it might be earned by commensurate contributions to production, in which case there is no justification to tax it, or obtained by dint of privilege and injustice, in which case it is the privilege and injustice that should be removed, not the income obtained from them. Duh.
Oh, come on, don't you believe that is obviously excessive? Such a tax policy would practically be equivalent to an income cap. It might be an interesting economic experiment though, to see what happens if you remove the incentive for the people at the very top end to invest. I honestly don't know whether that would overall be good or bad for the rest of the overall economy. Certainly it might reduce investment and investment efficiency in large corporations. Sometimes in the business world a single direct control authoritarian approach, where someone has their own money on the line, results in more optimal incentives than group collaboration. It's analogous to fascism versus democratic bureaucracy.
Republican taxcuts have dramatically REDUCED venture capital investment to the point where our nation is SUFFERING from a lack of funding for entrepreneurs. Couple that with the GREED OBSESSED Wall Street Casino Bosses stealing the wage increases and bonuses of hardworking Americans and this is the predictable result. https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/175499/starved-financing-new-businesses-decline.aspx The simple fact is that by GIVING investors GREATER RETURNS via taxcuts there is ZERO INCENTIVE for them to take any risks when it comes to investing in new businesses. INCREASE their tax rates and then they will look for alternatives like investing in new busineses in order to grow their wealth. America is not even in the top 15 nations as far as entrepreneurship as a share of the adult population goes. https://www.smallbizgenius.net/by-the-numbers/startup-statistics/ Taxcuts are a DISINCENTIVE to invest in growing the economy. The math doesn't lie.
We should go to a flat tax. That's the only way that everyone is taxed fairly. I've worked my ass off for what I have. The very idea that I should pay a hire percentage in taxes than someone who., maybe, has made a conscious decision to not work as hard as I have, is downright offensive. I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better...
Unless you make more than 5M a year very few of the proposals would touch your income. The wealthy elite are horse laughing that you believe you are or have ever been “rich”. The idea that people who have five yachts should be taxed at a higher percentage than people who are struggling to feed their families is one based on common sense. Only the greedy, corrupt or stupid believe we should lower taxes on people that have in abundance while increasing taxes on people that are already barely making it.
In the Federalist Paper, Madison, in discussing taxation, made the case for a ‘consumption’ tax. It still makes sense. The rich consume more than those with less. Want a yacht? No problem. Pay the tax. Deal drugs, make money and claim no earnings, no problem...a thief, pay the tax when you buy that show off car. Hide money off shore, no problem... pay the tax when you buy that personal jet. Poor, and can’t afford a car, no problem, you aren’t taxed for one. Want to save money, no problem, you aren’t taxed until you spend. Exemptions, healthcare and subsistence food. The only problem is, switch to a Consumption tax and politicians will still want to levy tax on anything additional they can.
Why do you feel you have a right to their money and that they should pay any more than you for the same government?
Apparently, you cannot see beyond a limited scope. If the 'government' can limit the maximum earnings of an individual, then they can limit YOUR earnings too.. for what ever reason they deem fit. Businesses don't exist to guarantee a comfortable income for people, that is the employees responsibility to make sure they earn a comfortable living, and what someone else makes for doing an entirely different job, shouldn't even come into play. But that's logic for ya, missing in some arguments….
Well, I don't really care what you believe. Whether it affects me personally doesn't make it fair... If you tax a guy who makes $20,000 a year at a rate of 10%, he's paying $2,000. If you tax a guy who makes $10,000,000 a year at the same rate, you're getting $1,000,000, which is a pretty nice chunk of change. Why should I; someone who chose to work his ass off to be successful and relatively wealthy, be charged a higher percentage than someone who chose not to work as hard? I'd love to hear your reasoning for that...
Because you have the ability; and some have argued the civic duty; to make the nation better and alleviate some of the burden off of the family making $18k a year trying to support his family. Thats below the poverty rate. Why not just move to everyone pays the same amount? Why is it fair to take only two grand from someone while another that has worked his ass off inheriting that money or position within a company has to pay millions in taxes. They should both have to pay the same amount. It makes about as much sense as a flat tax. If we taxed everyone at a flat 10% we would have to immediately cut the national budget by anywhere from $500B to $2T per year depending on the proposal. Seeing that we have a deficit of $1T now, what part of the budget do we slash to come up with your $3T tax break to the super rich? Let me guess — programs to the poor?
He'll tell you some bullshit about society working better and more efficiently. But he wants you to pay for the efficiency that benefits him and has no justifiable argument for not wanting to pay his fair share of it