What should the highest income tax rate be?

[dblack]

The highest tax rate should be the same as the lowest tax rate.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The above is the perfect example of why normal America does not take the right wing seriously.

And this is why I keep calling libtards stupid little bitches....

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government.

BTW, The Heritage Foundation was established during the Nixon years in protest over his abuses of power

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Please don't bore me with your idiotic and juvenile interpretation of the Preamble. It has no meaning or force of law. None. The SCOTUS has said so on numerous occasions.

Now that we've got that cleared up, please show me where in the Constitution is the duty to provide Food Stamps for people too fucking stupid to feed themselves.

Show me where in the Constitution is the duty to construct a Welfare system so onerous that it is close to breaking us.

Please show me in the Constitution where there is a requirement for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA.....

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Now prance along, little one. Pretend you weren't just schooled but make sure you impress your little friends OUTSIDE the USMB on how smart you are when you quote me.

It is a constitutional duty of the President to faithfully execute all federal laws. Article 2

Then why has he illegally ordered that portions of the Obamacare law, which is Federal Law, not be enforced until after the elections?

So, you admit Obama is violating the Constitution thus breaking the law. Should he be impeached?

Oh, and ditto with DOMA.

 

[NightFox]

The highest tax rate should be the same as the lowest tax rate.

LOL... cleverly put.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The above is the perfect example of why normal America does not take the right wing seriously.

And this is why I keep calling libtards stupid little bitches....

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government.

BTW, The Heritage Foundation was established during the Nixon years in protest over his abuses of power

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Please don't bore me with your idiotic and juvenile interpretation of the Preamble. It has no meaning or force of law. None. The SCOTUS has said so on numerous occasions.

Now that we've got that cleared up, please show me where in the Constitution is the duty to provide Food Stamps for people too fucking stupid to feed themselves.

Show me where in the Constitution is the duty to construct a Welfare system so onerous that it is close to breaking us.

Please show me in the Constitution where there is a requirement for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA.....

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Now prance along, little one. Pretend you weren't just schooled but make sure you impress your little friends OUTSIDE the USMB on how smart you are when you quote me.

It is a constitutional duty of the President to faithfully execute all federal laws. Article 2

Would having a law that states giving aid to the enemy is a criminal act and obama authorizing aid for that enemy be a violation of article 2?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how you can realistically calculate a percentage rate without knowing the costs for the federal government to carry out it's constitutional obligations and then determining the most efficient (and least economically harmful) way of collecting that revenue. Certainly the income tax system we have now is grossly inefficient (billions of man hours wasted every year on income tax preparation) as well as unjust (all sorts of favoritism based on economic activity type, income level, income type, martial status, etc...,).

The other big unknown is how do you calculate future costs and then determine if whatever system being proposed will scale appropriately to meet those needs? You also have to consider that non-obvious taxation (aka hidden taxes) tends to facilitate disconnection between proposal-price in the minds of the people as well as allowing politicians to wiggle off the hook for making tough decision regarding prioritizing expenditures.

The US Constitution details only one duty to the Federal Government..... The protection of our Borders from Invasion.

THAT is the ONLY Constitutional duty of the Federal Government.

None others. Not one. Zero.

Articles I,II and III beg to differ with your assessment.

for example:

Article I , section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I agree, but it would seem to me that you just nailed the 1 to 10% range. Clearly these things are greater than 0%, but it's inconceivable they could be more than 10%.

Note that's Federal government only.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent your support. The ignorant people seem to believe - and you seem to support their ignorance - that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true - so why does your poll make that appear to be true?

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and you do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet. No one will ever pay more than they earn and a flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

 

[Redfish]

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

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

 

[kaz]

The ignorant people seem to believe - and you seem to support their ignorance - that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income.

Actually my ignorance was underestimating your ignorance. OK, I could have said marginal rate, but I really didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to not realize that is what I was referring to.

I stand corrected.

EDIT: Re-reading my poll, read the comment on the 90-100% range, and then feel really, really stupid...

 

[kaz]

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

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

I like how we're worried about what politicians need and we're worried about what people who live off other people's money need, but we aren't worried about what the people who earned it need. It's just our job to cough it up and shut our traps.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

I like how we're worried about what politicians need and we're worried about what people who live off other people's money need, but we aren't worried about what the people who earned it need. It's just our job to cough it up and shut our traps.

And don't you forget it.

 

[NightFox]

The US Constitution details only one duty to the Federal Government..... The protection of our Borders from Invasion.

THAT is the ONLY Constitutional duty of the Federal Government.

None others. Not one. Zero.

Articles I,II and III beg to differ with your assessment.

for example:

Article I , section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I agree, but it would seem to me that you just nailed the 1 to 10% range. Clearly these things are greater than 0%, but it's inconceivable they could be more than 10%.

Note that's Federal government only.

I couldn't really say if 1 to 10% range is even remotely accurate because I've seen no credible data which delineates the costs of everything the federal government does pursuant to it's constitutional responsibilities without including all the unconstitutional nonsense that it's engaged in and there is NO WAY I would trust Washington to perform such calculations.

That being said, one way to go about figuring out the realities of what is required is to choke off the federal money supply to the point where our politicians are FORCED to make the tough decisions regarding spending priorities (you know like they should have been doing all along).

 

[kaz]

Articles I,II and III beg to differ with your assessment.

for example:

Article I , section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I agree, but it would seem to me that you just nailed the 1 to 10% range. Clearly these things are greater than 0%, but it's inconceivable they could be more than 10%.

Note that's Federal government only.

I couldn't really say if 1 to 10% range is even remotely accurate because I've seen no credible data which delineates the costs of everything the federal government does pursuant to it's constitutional responsibilities without including all the unconstitutional nonsense that it's engaged in and there is NO WAY I would trust Washington to perform such calculations.

That being said, one way to go about figuring out the realities of what is required is to choke off the federal money supply to the point where our politicians are FORCED to make the tough decisions regarding spending priorities (you know like they should have been doing all along).

While you were right that the Constitution gave more power than the military, clearly reading your list that is where almost all the cost would be. Ten percent of income is clearly sufficient to support the military. Where else are you seeing significant cost?

And I still say there is a right and wrong. While I'm not a religious person, the 10% rate in the bible to donate to church is actually deeply rooted in people's psyche as "fair." When rates are that or below, fraud is almost zero. When rates are above that, people exponentially spend their time avoiding taxes. When you combine the poor economic incentives with the increased fraud and subsequent reduction in growth of our economy, the government never actually gets more money when it makes rates higher than 10%.

 

[kwc57]

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

But, but, but......what about the evil bastards who stole their wealth from the little guy???

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Agreed flat rate and/or sales tax. No exceptions, no deductions. Fees on imports/exports and scams used to avoid the flat rate or sales tax. Yes that means you can't switch to handing out free homes as compensation to avoid the flat rate. Yes that means you can't buy in mexico to avoid the sales tax.

 

[NightFox]

I agree, but it would seem to me that you just nailed the 1 to 10% range. Clearly these things are greater than 0%, but it's inconceivable they could be more than 10%.

Note that's Federal government only.

I couldn't really say if 1 to 10% range is even remotely accurate because I've seen no credible data which delineates the costs of everything the federal government does pursuant to it's constitutional responsibilities without including all the unconstitutional nonsense that it's engaged in and there is NO WAY I would trust Washington to perform such calculations.

That being said, one way to go about figuring out the realities of what is required is to choke off the federal money supply to the point where our politicians are FORCED to make the tough decisions regarding spending priorities (you know like they should have been doing all along).

While you were right that the Constitution gave more power than the military, clearly reading your list that is where almost all the cost would be.

It's not my list, it's the constitutions list Article I (legislative branch) section 8, I posted it as an example of activities above and beyond national defense that the Constitution assigns to the federal government.

Ten percent of income is clearly sufficient to support the military. Where else are you seeing significant cost?

What I'm saying Kaz is that I don't know what those costs are RIGHT NOW since I have no credible data to base any number on. The exercise to get such data would require sitting down and going through current federal expenditures line by line and making a determination whether each expenditure is pursuant with something the Constitution grants authority for the federal government to be engaged in, from there one could then make determinations whether those items that are actually pursuant to Constitutional authority were being done in an efficient and effective manner. Without pursuing the above exercise it's just a WAG number and doesn't really have any bearing on whether a given flat tax rate is sufficient, insufficient or just right to support what is actually required.

Once one has some credible numbers on expenditures then one can begin to design a system of taxation that can generate the revenues required (hopefully in a just and efficient manner).

And I still say there is a right and wrong. While I'm not a religious person, the 10% rate in the bible to donate to church is actually deeply rooted in people's psyche as "fair." When rates are that or below, fraud is almost zero. When rates are above that, people exponentially spend their time avoiding taxes. When you combine the poor economic incentives with the increased fraud and subsequent reduction in growth of our economy, the government never actually gets more money when it makes rates higher than 10%.

You could be right on the 10%, you could be wrong, I don't know because we don't have any numbers to work with. Like I said if you wanted to get a more accurate (but still largely circumstantial) picture of the spending realities, one way to do it would be to choke off the money supply to the point where politicians are forced to jettison the unnecessary in order to service the necessary.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The ignorant people seem to believe - and you seem to support their ignorance - that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income.

Actually my ignorance was underestimating your ignorance. OK, I could have said marginal rate, but I really didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to not realize that is what I was referring to.

I stand corrected.

EDIT: Re-reading my poll, read the comment on the 90-100% range, and then feel really, really stupid...

I think your blinded by greed. Suggesting I'm stupid in the context of what I wrote is a silly ad hominem and not dealing with how we have become more and more of a Plutocracy, the gist of my point, is to lie by omission.

 

[antiquity]

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

That is the most sensible approach. But liberal can't fund their agenda with only 15% and conservatives won't go along with it because they wouldn't have any thing to bitch about.

 

[antiquity]

I can't vote in this poll because it doesn't include a flat tax.

 

[eagle1462010]

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 you and didn't answer the poll because this was not included. Which is the problem with polls. You are forced to agree with a group of set answers, when you don't agree with any of them.

Anyway, we are in agreement.