What should the highest income tax rate be?

[RetiredGySgt]

Taxing a man's labor is immoral.

If the federal government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution as was originally intended, there would be no need for an income tax.

I understand that puts a cramp in the central planners plans...

What about that first clause in the enumerated powers section? You just ignore that? Say that the word welfare had different meanings?

There is no general clause for welfare, it is simply a statement that the powers granted are for the welfare of the Country. Think for just a moment, why bother with specific limits and stated powers if the first clause allows ANY power?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

For lack of choice I choose "14%-49%"...but in reality I would say 15% to 25%.
Active Military, students and under 18 should be tax exempt

Why should they be exempt? That is just using the tax code for social engineering, which is a big part of the problem in the first place.

Personally I just think that as active military you are providing sufficient service. Under 18 and students need every dime they can get to pay tuition. Better they earn the money for school than the government take your money and give it to them.

 

[kaz]

The highest the tax rate on income should be is the amount that even the libs think that the lowest income should be taxed at.... if they should not be burdened with it or pay for it at a certain rate, nobody should

I think the lowest tax rate the libs would accept is way, way too high

 

[kaz]

Taxing a man's labor is immoral.

If the federal government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution as was originally intended, there would be no need for an income tax.

I understand that puts a cramp in the central planners plans...

What about that first clause in the enumerated powers section? You just ignore that? Say that the word welfare had different meanings?

There is no general clause for welfare, it is simply a statement that the powers granted are for the welfare of the Country. Think for just a moment, why bother with specific limits and stated powers if the first clause allows ANY power?

That clause at the time was heavily debated because some thought it opened the door ... to what eventually happened ...

Too bad they lost.

 

[eflatminor]

Taxing a man's labor is immoral.

If the federal government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution as was originally intended, there would be no need for an income tax.

I understand that puts a cramp in the central planners plans...

What about that first clause in the enumerated powers section? You just ignore that? Say that the word welfare had different meanings?

It most certainly did have a different meaning than what we think of today. What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored.

Jefferson wrote about the general welfare clause in 1791. He saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution..“that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

Further, if the general welfare clause was to mean what you suggest it means, there would have been no reason to specifically enumerate the powers that the federal government had...or to codify those powers with the 10th amendment.

You do understand that a federal income tax was outlawed for the 130 years of our country's existence, right? During that time, we thrived. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any point in history. But the central planners knew better of course...

 

[Rocko]

I want a flat rate at around 15 percent. No loop holes no deductions and a base amount earned before paying taxes at all.

I agree with a flat tax rate in principle in the name of fairness, however the U.S.'s budget is a complicated thing that, I admit, I'm not an expert on. So, because I'm limited in my expertise, I can't come up with a number that works, and I'm not sure a flat tax would work all together.

 

[The T]

I want a flat rate at around 15 percent. No loop holes no deductions and a base amount earned before paying taxes at all.

I agree with a flat tax rate in principle in the name of fairness, however the U.S.'s budget is a complicated thing that, I admit, I'm not an expert on. So, because I'm limited in my expertise, I can't come up with a number that works, and I'm not sure a flat tax would work all together.

First of all getting RID of the 16th Amendment would open so many doors...the 'sucking sound' you would hear would be offshore money returning to where it belongs.

ABOLISH THE IRS, and the punitive tax code that has turned into a political weapon and a playground for abuse of the citizens.

 

[percysunshine]

The trouble with a simple flat tax, or even a simple progressive tax, has always been that it restricts the power of politicians to buy influence and votes. The US tax code is 70,000 pages for a reason. Joe's whole foods bakery in Rep Fred's Congressional district gets an organic tax credit, and GE gets to deduct the cost of incandescent bulb manufacturing from it's earnings before tax. A person could write a revenue neutral, arguably fair, tax code in about two or three sentences, but then half of Washington DC would be out of jobs.

I know, it sucks.

 

[Londoner]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

Go into any store and read where the products are made. The bulk of your clothes, toasters, computers (and any product you can name) were made in very far away places (some of those places are in the "developing world" and they are politically unstable and occasionally require military "stabilization"). Or what about your oil, the bulk of which comes from a continent filled with terrorists. Do you know the military costs of stabilizing the middle east? And what about your precious metals from Africa?

Our corporations draw labor and raw materials from all over the globe - parts of which require military intervention, or the "softening" of regimes who would otherwise nationalize their resources and obstruct foreign investment. Also, do you know what it costs to run the patent system, which our private sector craves - so that the nanny state can intervene in the market and build a monopoly fence around their products. Have you ever researched the pressure that private sector lobbyists put on government for subsidies - massive subsidies? Do you know how many public dollars have been poured into constructing our modern industrial infrastructure? And I'm not just talking about the obvious stuff like roads, energy grids and water facilities, the cost of which you've never itemized; and the commercial benefits of which you've never priced.

Did you know that Boeing was, in the beginning, considered a quasi-government entity because of all the money that flowed into it from the pentagon budget? Along those line, have you ever priced out the technology that flowed out of the Pentagon and NASA systems into say consumer electronics?

The pundits and news organizations that you get your information from have given you very simplistic anti-tax rhetoric. I actually agree with a lot of it, and I used to agree with it a lot more when I was in high school. In fact, I tend to play your side of argument when I'm surrounded by my leftie friends. However, I must say that if you cannot provide an exhaustive itemization of all the things taxes pay for - especially those things that the private sector begs for to support their profit making activity - than you have no business speaking about this issue.

You have to stop listening to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Lavine, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

They have left you woefully unprepared to address these issues.

 

[percysunshine]

At last.... Now I know the price of tea in China.

 

[The Rabbi]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

Go into any store and read where the products are made. The bulk of your clothes, toasters, computers (and any product you can name) were made in very far away places (some of those places are in the "developing world" and they are politically unstable and occasionally require military "stabilization"). Or what about your oil, the bulk of which comes from a continent filled with terrorists. Do you know the military costs of stabilizing the middle east? And what about your precious metals from Africa?

Our corporations draw labor and raw materials from all over the globe - parts of which require military intervention, or the "softening" of regimes who would otherwise nationalize their resources and obstruct foreign investment. Also, do you know what it costs to run the patent system, which our private sector craves - so that the nanny state can intervene in the market and build a monopoly fence around their products. Have you ever researched the pressure that private sector lobbyists put on government for subsidies - massive subsidies? Do you know how many public dollars have been poured into constructing our modern industrial infrastructure? And I'm not just talking about the obvious stuff like roads, energy grids and water facilities, the cost of which you've never itemized; and the commercial benefits of which you've never priced.

Did you know that Boeing was, in the beginning, considered a quasi-government entity because of all the money that flowed into it from the pentagon budget? Along those line, have you ever priced out the technology that flowed out of the Pentagon and NASA systems into say consumer electronics?

The pundits and news organizations that you get your information from have given you very simplistic anti-tax rhetoric. I actually agree with a lot of it, and I used to agree with it a lot more when I was in high school. In fact, I tend to play your side of argument when I'm surrounded by my leftie friends. However, I must say that if you cannot provide an exhaustive itemization of all the things taxes pay for - especially those things that the private sector begs for to support their profit making activity - than you have no business speaking about this issue.

You have to stop listening to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Lavine, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

They have left you woefully unprepared to address these issues.

Nowhere in that bloviating ill informed rant did you answer the question. Are you capable of it?

 

[SayMyName]

If 10 percent is good enough for God, then the government should settle for less. Even then, it should be on consumption and use, not wages and salary. You buy it or use it (like that highway to nowhere but your town that you so wanted), then you are taxed or tolled for it.

 

[auditor0007]

I would not have any objection to a 15% tax rate.. But that would have to be used to fund all levels of Government, Federal, State, and Local.

And this is why it's impossible to have any serious discussions on taxes. Now we could do what you want, if we cut military spending by 75%, and we put an absolute end to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and we close all public schools, and we stop any work on infrastructure and never put any money into infrastructure ever again. We would probably need to cut police and fire departments by at least 50%. Those are just for starters.

Honestly, you guys crack me up.

 

[auditor0007]

I am curious to see how many Libs here will be honest and will check off
the 90-100% box...

See all the silly nonsense you believe. Everyone knows the crap you guys spew is nonsense, but you keep doing it anyway.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

Are you talking about property tax or income tax?
Income tax is illegal
property tax is not.

 

[DiamondDave]

The highest the tax rate on income should be is the amount that even the libs think that the lowest income should be taxed at.... if they should not be burdened with it or pay for it at a certain rate, nobody should

I think the lowest tax rate the libs would accept is way, way too high

Dunno.. they do state all over the place that it is 'right' that the lowest earners pay nothing

 

[DiamondDave]

Taxing a man's labor is immoral.

If the federal government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution as was originally intended, there would be no need for an income tax.

I understand that puts a cramp in the central planners plans...

What about that first clause in the enumerated powers section? You just ignore that? Say that the word welfare had different meanings?

Do you know that the clause does not end with the word WELFARE??? You are a fucking idiot

Do you understand that it meant the GENERAL welfare of the STATES, and not the specific welfare of individuals??? Do you understand that the clause then specifically lays out what can be spent on, etc.. and DO you understand that the 10th amendment states that anything not specifically charged to the federal government in the constitution is a power then reserved for the states or the individual citizens??

Of course not

 

[DiamondDave]

I would not have any objection to a 15% tax rate.. But that would have to be used to fund all levels of Government, Federal, State, and Local.

And this is why it's impossible to have any serious discussions on taxes. Now we could do what you want, if we cut military spending by 75%, and we put an absolute end to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and we close all public schools, and we stop any work on infrastructure and never put any money into infrastructure ever again. We would probably need to cut police and fire departments by at least 50%. Those are just for starters.

Honestly, you guys crack me up.

1) There are lots of areas the federal government is spending in that would go before slashing military spending to that extent
2) The federal government should end medicare, medicaid, etc.. weaning us off it, not allowing any more to claim it, etc...
3) The federal government is not constitutionally charged with funding or providing education, that is on the states or the individuals
4) Federal government is charged with handling federal roads, etc... again, more things to cut before this
5) Police and Fire are not the responsibility of the federal government.. again, this is for the states, local governments, etc

Idiot

 

[DiamondDave]

I am curious to see how many Libs here will be honest and will check off
the 90-100% box...

See all the silly nonsense you believe. Everyone knows the crap you guys spew is nonsense, but you keep doing it anyway.

Yet we continually DO have progressive wingers calling for a 90% tax rate on 'the rich'... and even ones who want confiscation of all wealth held by individuals over $2MIL

 

[kaz]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

Are you talking about property tax or income tax?
Income tax is illegal
property tax is not.

Answer in red.

Not sure what you mean by illegal unless you're referring to the dubious passage of the 16th amendment.