Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

 

[francoHFW]

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

Tissue?

So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol

 

[Dad2three]

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid fuck?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion.....so far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

Why do low info guys like YOU use NOMINAL numbers versus adjusted like economists look at it? Oh right to push your ideology over FACTS that Ronnie TRIPLED the US debt of EVERY other US Prez!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

 

[Dad2three]

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

Tissue?

I get it, destroying your weak talking points is getting you down? Sorry

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

Tissue?

So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol

How can you type thru your tears?

 

[Dad2three]

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

 

[Dad2three]

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

No, go look for it yourself!

 

[Dad2three]

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?

YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION

Did you ever provide a source for this claim?

Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look

Great, so you can provide it again.

 

[sealybobo]

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

If Democrats teabaggers boehner and McConnell or Tom delay and pedophile Dennis hastert and bush as much as McConnell did harry Reid and pelosi, you repubs wuold be crying like babies.

You hold us to a higher standard because you know most voters don't pay attention enough to know this.

In fact I bet your dumb ass doesn't even know it. Do you?

 

[dcraelin]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

 

[bedowin62]

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

great!!! see if you can get raul castro to run on the Dem ticket; he can get a top tax rate like that done!!

 

[bedowin62]

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

 

[dcraelin]

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.

 

[bedowin62]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.

WTF???

did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?

straw man?


lol.............................

free college education

amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits

thats just for starters idiot

 

[Dad2three]

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

Reagan stopped the credit card interest deductions, but left the mortgage interest deductions UNLIMITED and even for second homes? lol

END tax loopholes that benefit the rich, PRIMARY residence ONLY deduction AND cap it at $1,000,000 value (adjust it for inflation)!

 

[bedowin62]

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.

"universal" health care

costly mandates on the coal and oiil industries
obamacare Medicaid subsidy will phase out in a few years
any number of "infrastructure" bills

obama has a plan for FREE SOLAR PANELS

ur a joke

 

[dcraelin]

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??

what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.

WTF???

did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?

straw man?


lol.............................

free college education

amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits

thats just for starters idiot

im more with trump on immigration, but the cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.

I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....

 

[bedowin62]

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

Reagan stopped the credit card interest deductions, but left the mortgage interest deductions UNLIMITED and even for second homes? lol

END tax loopholes that benefit the rich, PRIMARY residence ONLY deduction AND cap it at $1,000,000 value (adjust it for inflation)!

reagan was an amazing dude. but HOW did he get all those Democrats in his Congress to go along with all that leftard???????

inquiring minds want to know!!