When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, the rich pay enormous amounts in taxes. The top 1% actually pay about half of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

That's actual taxes paid. Not tax rates.

Thank you Sky.

To take that a bit further. the top 25% of American earners pay over 86% of all the federal personal income taxes Washington collects.

To those here who scream for more from "the rich" I often ask (but they never answer) what would be satisfactory to them?
96%?
106%

The share of taxes the top 25% pay would fall if we saw better paying jobs for the lower 25%.

Those in the bottom 25% generally have the same opportunity and right to enhance their job skills - and thus their earning potential - as those who already have. More education and fewer babies might help in their quest. In any event, it isn't for you or me to decide how they CHOOSE to live their lives and not for me to pay for their life CHOICES. However you are perfectly free to write 'em a check.

I don't have to write them a check. The People help the poor through our democratic government.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, the rich pay enormous amounts in taxes. The top 1% actually pay about half of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

That's actual taxes paid. Not tax rates.

Thank you Sky.

To take that a bit further. the top 25% of American earners pay over 86% of all the federal personal income taxes Washington collects.

To those here who scream for more from "the rich" I often ask (but they never answer) what would be satisfactory to them?
96%?
106%

The share of taxes the top 25% pay would fall if we saw better paying jobs for the lower 25%.

Those in the bottom 25% generally have the same opportunity and right to enhance their job skills - and thus their earning potential - as those who already have. More education and fewer babies might help in their quest. In any event, it isn't for you or me to decide how they CHOOSE to live their lives and not for me to pay for their life CHOICES. However you are perfectly free to write 'em a check.

dear, only the Right is that cognitively dissonant about socialism and prove it by Only complaining when the least wealthy get bailed without anything trickling down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

 

[healthmyths]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

Just the facts folks! Tax cuts went to affect, TAX revenues increased.
GDP increased.
And all of this in spite of these events that NO other president has ever faced in one administration!
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss

• 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
• 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
• 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...

In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

Source: USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

Just the facts folks! Tax cuts went to affect, TAX revenues increased.
GDP increased.
And all of this in spite of these events that NO other president has ever faced in one administration!
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss

• 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
• 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
• 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...

In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:


View attachment 53679
Source: USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set

the fact is we have half the economic growth we should have and incomes are going down not up. That makes this the worst recovery since The Great Depression

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

Anytime it's implemented.

 

[Political Junky]

The rich on the Right love the idea of trickle down and the poor on the Right believe that shit while they get poorer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

Just the facts folks! Tax cuts went to affect, TAX revenues increased.
GDP increased.
And all of this in spite of these events that NO other president has ever faced in one administration!
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss

• 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
• 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
• 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...

In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:


View attachment 53679
Source: USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set

Your chart shows revenues FALLING in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2008.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

Just the facts folks! Tax cuts went to affect, TAX revenues increased.
GDP increased.
And all of this in spite of these events that NO other president has ever faced in one administration!
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss

• 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
• 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
• 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...

In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:


View attachment 53679
Source: USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set

Bush's deficits are the fault of Bush cutting taxes twice while the US entered TWO wars.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

Your typically arrogant but always baseless self congratulation aside, and dismissing your usual ad hominem tripe, it should not go unnoticed that your alleged "rebuttal" actually rebutted nothing.

I never denied that the Founders might wish to have a government willing and able to engage in some kinds of protectionism (in fact, to the contrary, I was quite clear in recognizing that notions of "protectionism" existed).

What I SAID, you dimwit, was that THEIR notions of protectionism might differ from the way YOU tend to grasp the meaning of that term.
Nothing you posted refutes or rebuts a single thing I have said.

Let's go a tiny bit further. If (pick a nation) Japan happens to impose special tariffs on American manufactured goods which we try to sell abroad, but the U.S. happens not to impose a reciprocal tariff on Japanese products, then the Japanese government is certainly engaged in protectionism. And the U.S. by contrast, in that example, would certainly NOT be engaged in protectionism. The government, under those or other relevant circumstances, absolutely has a Constitutional authority to seek to level off the playing field.

As to CORPORATIONS. I am mildly gratified that you are beginning to study the topic closely enough to recognize the history of that construct. At the same time, you and your ilk will continue to clamor that "corporations are not 'People!'"

What you guys FAIL to grasp is that corporations (the very word MEANS "body") were imbued with the status of "person" LARGELY for the very reason and for the very purpose of insuring that they have access to the Courts.

That doesn't qualify as "strict government control." And I already agreed that there IS a valid place for SOME government control over corporations. This is why we have such things as "regulations."

It remains forever murky whatever it is you seem to imagine you are arguing for (or against). Corporations DO exist, Virginia. They ARE subject to SOME reasonable government control (as I previously and correctly said), but not STRICT government control. This is not a socialist state.

Feel obliged to try again, carbuncle. Try to be a little bit clear in your thinking this time, though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

Your typically arrogant but always baseless self congratulation aside, and dismissing your usual ad hominem tripe, it should not go unnoticed that your alleged "rebuttal" actually rebutted nothing.

I never denied that the Founders might wish to have a government willing and able to engage in some kinds of protectionism (in fact, to the contrary, I was quite clear in recognizing that notions of "protectionism" existed).

What I SAID, you dimwit, was that THEIR notions of protectionism might differ from the way YOU tend to grasp the meaning of that term.
Nothing you posted refutes or rebuts a single thing I have said.

Let's go a tiny bit further. If (pick a nation) Japan happens to impose special tariffs on American manufactured goods which we try to sell abroad, but the U.S. happens not to impose a reciprocal tariff on Japanese products, then the Japanese government is certainly engaged in protectionism. And the U.S. by contrast, in that example, would certainly NOT be engaged in protectionism. The government, under those or other relevant circumstances, absolutely has a Constitutional authority to seek to level off the playing field.

As to CORPORATIONS. I am mildly gratified that you are beginning to study the topic closely enough to recognize the history of that construct. At the same time, you and your ilk will continue to clamor that "corporations are not 'People!'"

What you guys FAIL to grasp is that corporations (the very word MEANS "body") were imbued with the status of "person" LARGELY for the very reason and for the very purpose of insuring that they have access to the Courts.

That doesn't qualify as "strict government control." And I already agreed that there IS a valid place for SOME government control over corporations. This is why we have such things as "regulations."

It remains forever murky whatever it is you seem to imagine you are arguing for (or against). Corporations DO exist, Virginia. They ARE subject to SOME reasonable government control (as I previously and correctly said), but not STRICT government control. This is not a socialist state.

Feel obliged to try again, carbuncle. Try to be a little bit clear in your thinking this time, though.

Predictable.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

Your typically arrogant but always baseless self congratulation aside, and dismissing your usual ad hominem tripe, it should not go unnoticed that your alleged "rebuttal" actually rebutted nothing.

I never denied that the Founders might wish to have a government willing and able to engage in some kinds of protectionism (in fact, to the contrary, I was quite clear in recognizing that notions of "protectionism" existed).

What I SAID, you dimwit, was that THEIR notions of protectionism might differ from the way YOU tend to grasp the meaning of that term.
Nothing you posted refutes or rebuts a single thing I have said.

Let's go a tiny bit further. If (pick a nation) Japan happens to impose special tariffs on American manufactured goods which we try to sell abroad, but the U.S. happens not to impose a reciprocal tariff on Japanese products, then the Japanese government is certainly engaged in protectionism. And the U.S. by contrast, in that example, would certainly NOT be engaged in protectionism. The government, under those or other relevant circumstances, absolutely has a Constitutional authority to seek to level off the playing field.

As to CORPORATIONS. I am mildly gratified that you are beginning to study the topic closely enough to recognize the history of that construct. At the same time, you and your ilk will continue to clamor that "corporations are not 'People!'"

What you guys FAIL to grasp is that corporations (the very word MEANS "body") were imbued with the status of "person" LARGELY for the very reason and for the very purpose of insuring that they have access to the Courts.

That doesn't qualify as "strict government control." And I already agreed that there IS a valid place for SOME government control over corporations. This is why we have such things as "regulations."

It remains forever murky whatever it is you seem to imagine you are arguing for (or against). Corporations DO exist, Virginia. They ARE subject to SOME reasonable government control (as I previously and correctly said), but not STRICT government control. This is not a socialist state.

Feel obliged to try again, carbuncle. Try to be a little bit clear in your thinking this time, though.

Predictable.

^ That you'd have nothing intelligent to say by now?

Yes. Quite predictable.

 

[eagle1462010]

1. Carson used the 10% as an example of the Flat Tax..........
2. Carson has stated that it would be more than likely around 15%.......
3. Carson has not offered an Official plan..........so scoring on sound bites alone is BS........
4. Rand Paul has submitted a tax plan with a Flat Rate of 14.5% and it has been scored by the Tax Foundation.
5. Ted Cruz has promoted a Tax plan with a 10% flat rate, followed by a Consumption tax of 16%......aka a VAT....

The Economic Effects of Rand Paul’s Tax Reform Plan
Comparing the 2016 Presidential Tax Reform Proposals
Flat taxes and gold: A few thoughts on Ted Cruz's economic plan - AEI

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Before we talk wistfully of flat taxes and lowering tax rates we need to talk about reducing government waste. Need to cut WAY back on military spending (or at least start winning wars to justify the costs,) and audit government spending top to bottom. Imagine the actual costs involved with government are less than half what we actually spend due to waste, dead projects that still get funded, and corruption.

Until we spend money in government like a retiree on a fixed income, taxes aren't the solution either way.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Before we talk wistfully of flat taxes and lowering tax rates we need to talk about reducing government waste. Need to cut WAY back on military spending (or at least start winning wars to justify the costs,) and audit government spending top to bottom. Imagine the actual costs involved with government are less than half what we actually spend due to waste, dead projects that still get funded, and corruption.

Until we spend money in government like a retiree on a fixed income, taxes aren't the solution either way.

Partially correct and partially false.

What we SHOULD do is engage in all parts of that conversation at roughly the same time.

Cutting waste. Good idea. BUT, mere meaningless words until we mange to figure out how to identify all the places it exists (and define what constitutes waste, which is not always a matter of agreement).

And there is no good reason to "cut" military spending unless we are actually as safe as we can reasonably be. There MIGHT very well be different ways to try to generate lower costs for what we spend for things military. But many folks (most often the knee jerk liberals) see the military component of our national budget as a big fat cow from which they can cut off massive slices to pay for "other things." Such "vision" is dubious. Are we confronted with lots of potential enemies out there? Are THEY cutting THEIR spending? Or are they building up? Are we adequately equipped to fight a "two front" war? Or two or more simultaneous wars? Wouldn't it be at least prudent to address all of these (and a multitude or related) questions BEFORE we choose to trim the national budget by trimming military spending?

Audit? Yes. Let's all agree to audit the living snot out of ALL components of the national budget. And let's audit the FED, too.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Before we talk wistfully of flat taxes and lowering tax rates we need to talk about reducing government waste. Need to cut WAY back on military spending (or at least start winning wars to justify the costs,) and audit government spending top to bottom. Imagine the actual costs involved with government are less than half what we actually spend due to waste, dead projects that still get funded, and corruption.

Until we spend money in government like a retiree on a fixed income, taxes aren't the solution either way.

Partially correct and partially false.

What we SHOULD do is engage in all parts of that conversation at roughly the same time.

Cutting waste. Good idea. BUT, mere meaningless words until we mange to figure out how to identify all the places it exists (and define what constitutes waste, which is not always a matter of agreement).

And there is no good reason to "cut" military spending unless we are actually as safe as we can reasonably be. There MIGHT very well be different ways to try to generate lower costs for what we spend for things military. But many folks (most often the knee jerk liberals) see the military component of our national budget as a big fat cow from which they can cut off massive slices to pay for "other things." Such "vision" is dubious. Are we confronted with lots of potential enemies out there? Are THEY cutting THEIR spending? Or are they building up? Are we adequately equipped to fight a "two front" war? Or two or more simultaneous wars? Wouldn't it be at least prudent to address all of these (and a multitude or related) questions BEFORE we choose to trim the national budget by trimming military spending?

Audit? Yes. Let's all agree to audit the living snot out of ALL components of the national budget. And let's audit the FED, too.

Military actions over my lifetime is precisely what's made us less-safe. When you drop bombs on people their relatives and friends tend to get annoyed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Clinton proposes an increased tax on capital gains..........and increasing the holding time for getting tax breaks for holding on to stocks longer..................

Here she is.........Talking in circles..............as always...........Bottom line.....she wants the rate back to 39.6%..........not only that she wants the time frame increased well beyond a year..................

To the other taxes.............SHE OFFERS NOTHING AT ALL.....................

So, here she is talking in circles so she can never get caught standing on the issues........

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Before we talk wistfully of flat taxes and lowering tax rates we need to talk about reducing government waste. Need to cut WAY back on military spending (or at least start winning wars to justify the costs,) and audit government spending top to bottom. Imagine the actual costs involved with government are less than half what we actually spend due to waste, dead projects that still get funded, and corruption.

Until we spend money in government like a retiree on a fixed income, taxes aren't the solution either way.

Partially correct and partially false.

What we SHOULD do is engage in all parts of that conversation at roughly the same time.

Cutting waste. Good idea. BUT, mere meaningless words until we mange to figure out how to identify all the places it exists (and define what constitutes waste, which is not always a matter of agreement).

And there is no good reason to "cut" military spending unless we are actually as safe as we can reasonably be. There MIGHT very well be different ways to try to generate lower costs for what we spend for things military. But many folks (most often the knee jerk liberals) see the military component of our national budget as a big fat cow from which they can cut off massive slices to pay for "other things." Such "vision" is dubious. Are we confronted with lots of potential enemies out there? Are THEY cutting THEIR spending? Or are they building up? Are we adequately equipped to fight a "two front" war? Or two or more simultaneous wars? Wouldn't it be at least prudent to address all of these (and a multitude or related) questions BEFORE we choose to trim the national budget by trimming military spending?

Audit? Yes. Let's all agree to audit the living snot out of ALL components of the national budget. And let's audit the FED, too.

Military actions over my lifetime is precisely what's made us less-safe. When you drop bombs on people their relatives and friends tend to get annoyed.

I get that that is the way you feel.

But it is a platitude you spew.

And your saying it doesn't mean it's true, either.

Besides, there is FAR more to our military than merely (as you cavalierly and dismissively and inaccurately put it) "dropping bombs on people." I don't know ANYONE who has contended that just '"dropping bombs on people" is in any way an effective military option.