Reduce taxes on the rich!

Nope no college your right there, but i have a thing for numbers. Think your net worth is higher? For someone so intelligent great way to MISS the ENTIRE point of the thread. Perhaps i shouldnt have used the title i did, bumper sticker mentality is alive and well.

 

Skin in the game for all? How are you even serious about that argument when 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes and nearly half the country pay no federal taxes at all? And why do we need a "balanced" solution when there's been nothing balanced about government spending with reckless abandon? Government spending caused this problem, not a lack of tax revenues, so a "balanced" approach is to make government spend less, not to make people pay for its irresponsibility; especially considering the government shows no sign that it will not simply spend that extra revenue and we wouldn't be any better off. Your argument has absolutely no leg to stand on.

 

Yes, yes, we know all that. What I am asking for is the specific number you want the so-called rich to pay. I don't mean as a percentage of their income, I mean the portion of all Federal income taxes you want them to be responsible for. Since they already pay the overwhelming majority of all Federal "revenues", what percentage of the entire tax burden do you wish them to pay? NAME A NUMBER. Why is this so difficult?

 

they won't do it because what they really want is 100%. their goal is to destroy successful people and take their money for themselves.

 

Actually, as I said earlier I think the number is closer to the proverbial 110%. But as usual, libs cannot be honest lest the mask slip.

 

Even more?

What do you want that they pay 0 taxes. And all be paid by the poor and middle classes? Screw this.

 

Please provide the quote where someone even remotely suggested that. I'll wait.....

 

If you cannot accept the fallacy you started out with up there... then I suppose you won't be a willing part of the solution.

Even so, America will NOT continue as it has. I think you can take your money and run, but otherwise... we'll carry on with maintaining and building this society.

 

No its not the case still, it didnt work out to well for them actually

Booming Sweden’s Free-Market Solutionhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/booming-sweden-s-free-market-solution.html

 

That is an extreme view, IMO.

 

Did I say that? Has anyone said that? The proposed new rate is 39.6%, maybe less. That's up from 35%. That's what this whole ridiculous battle is about. Rich people paying an extra 4%.

 

No, the battle is about harming the already fragile economy in the name of some perverted ideology of "fairness".

 

Taxes haven't gone up overall. It's just that the rich are paying less, so the rest of us are making up the difference by paying more. THANKS, REAGANOMICS!

 

There is a point at which taxes begin to choke off GDP. There's another point at which government revenue can be a significant boost to GDP. Ask the mayor of any town hosts a military base, a VA hospital, a private arms contractor such as Raytheon, or civil engineering companies such as those who built the Hoover Dam. Not only did they create Boulder City, they created Las Vegas.

At 20-22% of GDP, federal government spending is already minimal. We need a lot more government spending. Always have.

 

We've had the income tax for a hundred years. Please show me a case where the overall economy was harmed by raising taxes on the wealthy. Just one.

 

I posted one earlier, the UK recently raised taxes on the rich and the result was: "it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...aires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

The wealthy aren't stupid, they just find others ways to generate wealth without showing it as personal income or they leave to somewhere else. Its already inefficient for the truly wealthy to grow wealth via income, thats why im suggesting tax at the corporate/ business level instead.

 

How so? Prove it mathematically.