State Constitutions - Amendment for Upcoming Election

Here in IL, there is an amendment on the ballot to have a graduated tax in which the top 3% of tax payers will pay more than the 97%. I saw a few commercials, both, for and against it

Outside of the 3%, I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to this amendment.

Are there any open questions on your state's ballot this year?

 

It sounds like IL is attempting to implement something similar to the Eisenhower era tax code, with upward sliding tax brackets for those earning more than what constituted an average income at the time. That tax code is what made our middle and working classes so strong.

 

Hopefully, that holds true for our state if it gets passed. I would hate for that money to "go missing" on our governor's pet project or personal property renovations.

 

Problem is the top 3% has the means to pack up and leave if they choose.

 

And go where?

 

What do you think is a fair and equitable solution to the middle class being taxed to death?

 

To a state with a lower tax rate. Last I heard Taxifornia and other high rate states are hemorrhaging people.

 

Tax everyone at precisely the same %. No exemptions, no deductions, no havens, no loopholes, no credits. Literally a one line tax code:

'Everyone pays X% of their income.'

No amount of lawyers or lobbying is going to get anyone a break if its simple enough.

Thats a close to fair and equitable as we're ever going to get. Anything else just lets the rich buy breaks from lawyers and politicians that the rest of us can't get.

 

stupid for a State to do this, as they can move to any state they choose, easier for the fed to raise taxes on the rich

 

I honestly don't have a clue. If you took 99% of every taxable dollar of the top 3% I don't see how that gives any relief to the middle class as it would amount to a molecule in the bucket of governments spending. I stopped being a slave to personal deficit spending years ago, cut the cards up, paid them off, and since then if I can't buy something outright or save up for it then I do without it. But what's worked for me certainly wouldn't for others and damn sure not for the government.

 

We have a few.

My favorite no brainer is this one: The Florida legislature would like it if we, the people, had to vote in favor of an amendment in two consecutive elections, before it becomes law.

If we, the people, say anything other than F You to that, I will be extremely surprised and disappointed.

 

"The art of taxation consists of plucking the goose so as to obtain the most feathers with the least hissing". Jean-Baptiste Colbert

 

Lower their rates.
Eliminate the many sales taxes, fees and surcharges inflicted upon them.

 

So long as taxation is an 'art' the 'artists' have the upper hand.

Only by removing any benefit of skill, strategy or intrigue from it will it ever be close to 'fair'.

 

So you think the impact is the same, regardless?

A person making $20,000 / year will feel actual financial pain with the loss of $2,000. The guy who has to pay $2,000,000 barely knows it left the building.

 

Why do you feel you deserve other people's stuff?

 

So we can agree that being rich has perks.

The goal should be funding the necessary functions of government, not regulating wealth.

There's no way to truly equalize the burden of taxation. Just as some people tend to have more highly valued skills or even just better luck, some people can live more happily with the same amount of money as others who are less happy with it. The attempt to equalize burden fails as soon as it begins.

What we need to focus on is reducing the ability of the rich to use their wealth to further emburden the poor. A simple, unavoidable tax code is a big step in ensuring the rich cant manipulate that code to keep the poor, well, poor.

 

Wealthy people do not live off their salaries.

They live off capital gains or inheritance.

 

Sure. Rich should have perks. I'm in the top 2%. We like the perks. We pay a lot of income tax, and hate how much of it goes to waste.

My issue is that the government itself, is too big.

I'm in favor of dramatically cutting the military budget so that they only need $150 each from us to run the entire government, but that's not realistic right now. I'm happy to work towards cutting the budget in half, if that is what it takes. I refuse to do that while taking so much from the working poor that they need to stay on welfare. That hurts the problem.

When I was couch diving for change so I could afford Ramen for the next three days, I wasn't really in a good spot to help expand the military. I worked my ass off, but saving along the way was a major challenge.

It's ridiculous to think I support welfare. Walmart wants the welfare system to stay. They are paying part of their full time employee's wages. I've never taken even a day's unemployment. I grew up in an era where minimum wage jobs were only for high school students. That's no longer the case.

 

I agree entirely. Though I suspect you may have been reading too much into what I said. I just want to simplify the tax code so as to make being taxed unavoidable, then everyone pays their share. Cutting the govt in half would be great too, then we could lower the tax burden on the poor (by lowering it for everyone).

 

Employees with skills valued by the employer are paid accordingly, likewise employees without skills are paid accordingly

 

Like you, I don't let others decide how to spend my money. I only used CCs to build my credit score by paying them off before interest hits. I know people that use them as a way of life and only pay the interest with no understanding how it's compounded and why that's pointless. I went through the same thing when buying property. Realtors were constantly trying to push me into more expensive properties because I was pre-approved for more than I wanted to spend. That turned out to be prudent as things went south in the airline industry as a result of 9/11 and nothing in my life had to change monetarily. I understand that people need food and shelter, but I think it's wrong for people to buy with absolute abandon and file bankruptcy multiple times.

I don't believe any governmental entity is going to lower taxes as they will always justify why they need more and more. Nobody on the planet would retain a CFO that constantly showed a deficit to stock holders. Why in the world would we accept it from our representatives? Unreal.

 

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you. You didn't specify where your referenced 3% were. I assumed you meant they would leave the country if Biden wins and raises their taxes.

 

LOL! Careful ... geese can be agressive and mean.

 

How would you replace the lost revenue?