@GopherT

In 1987 the election of George H W Bush and the democrat controlled congress caused the lower group to jump from zero to 15 percent.

What should the marginal tax rates be for the upper and lower incomes?

It's a little hard to tell now because it has been screwed up for some time. But I would say you could creep up on the 70%, 14% range again. Move capital gains up a percent or 3.
If you were really brave you could attack the corporate taxes at the same time. If you got rid of all the BS you could drop it to 13 or 15% and get rid of a bunch tax lawyers. This has the added benefit that people could no longer hide behind the high corporate tax rate. But the effects of this one are really hard to predict even though the total amount of money would be about the same.
The deficit every one worries about would soon disappear and we might even have enough to fix a bridge or two.

 

Milk subsidies in the northeast keeps the prices down. The other subsidies keep the price of food down

What happened to the conservative idea of "let the markets decide"? Giving subsidies/welfare to corporate farmers to keep the cost down, seems to be a anti-capitalist view that shows that the conservative coalition "pay's" those that pay them.

 

What I love about this chart is the tax cuts that reagan made. Allowing a CEO who earned $1M and took home $300k in 1980 to take home $720k by 1988. The Republicans keep saying, Reagan cut taxes and it stimulated the economy, lets do it again

I found an eye opening story on the Reagan tax cuts and why the GOP is so set on changing Social Security. It's worth while to read the whole thing. http://www.thebiglie.net/id5.html

And to this same thing, read the bottom of this website where it say's the SS bonds that Bush took for the Iraq war will need to be repaid in 2020. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orge-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/

 

Second, What SHOULD they be? What kind of childish / naive question is that? Is that the first (only), critical question that comes to mind when you set a budget? Your simple-minded view of a problem is sweet.

So someone says that X isn't paying enough and you say that it is childish and naïve to ask that person how much X should be paying?

 

So someone says that X isn't paying enough and you say that it is childish and naïve to ask that person how much X should be paying?

Yes, because he is as challenged as you. How do you get to decide someone is not paying "enough". I called him simple because anyone that starts (or limits) a discussion on the right amount to pay is like asking me so, "lets figure out a budget for your finances, how much do you want to get paid".

There are many more important questions to be asked before changes to the tax rates are made.

Back to your comment about "not paying enough"... You pay the same taxes on your first $30k of income as someone earning his $30k, are you implying that you don't pay "enough" as well?

Also, if you are claiming to be quoting that someone else said, "x isn't paying enough", I would like to know who that someone is because JJester did not say that. He only asked what I thought the rates should be.

 

Yes, because he is as challenged as you. How do you get to decide someone is not paying "enough". I called him simple because anyone that starts (or limits) a discussion on the right amount to pay is like asking me so, "lets figure out a budget for your finances, how much do you want to get paid".

There are many more important questions to be asked before changes to the tax rates are made.

Back to your comment about "not paying enough"... You pay the same taxes on your first $30k of income as someone earning his $30k, are you implying that you don't pay "enough" as well?

Also, if you are claiming to be quoting that someone else said, "x isn't paying enough", I would like to know who that someone is because JJester did not say that. He only asked what I thought the rates should be.

Where did I ever say that someone is not paying "enough"?

As for whether I pay "my fair share", the answer is most definitely not. The Federal Budget is presently about $12,000 for every person in the United States, so the "fair share" for my family of three would be $36,000 (just for federal non-SS spending). Allowing for the nearly 20% of revenue that comes from corporate taxes, my fair share of the individual taxes would be about $29,250. I'm not paying even a tenth of that (and, in fact, in some years I haven't paid even 0.1% of that). Even as a percentage of taxable income (or gross income, for that matter), I am not paying anywhere near what the people that are always accused of "not paying their fair share" are paying.

 

Allowing for the nearly 20% of revenue that comes from corporate taxes...

Just a bit of clarification: Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Corporate taxes are passed through via the final price paid for a product or service. It is the most evil kind of hidden tax for any number of reasons, the least of which is that corporations don't vote and, therefore, have no representation. This is one of the major reasons they lobby so hard for legislation in their favor.

 

Just a bit of clarification: Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Corporate taxes are passed through via the final price paid for a product or service. It is the most evil kind of hidden tax for any number of reasons, the least of which is that corporations don't vote and, therefore, have no representation. This is one of the major reasons they lobby so hard for legislation in their favor.

I agree. But I still need to compensate for them in determining what "my fair share" is. A more accurate way of expressing it is that about 20% of my proper tax liability is paid by corporations on my behalf.

Over the decades I've gone back and forth on how I think the lion's share of federal revenue should be derived. The founders intended for it to be dominated by excise taxes, though they allowed for direct taxation by enumeration. I think that approach has a lot going for it. I'd like to see each Congressional district being responsible for presenting its share of the federal coffers to the Secretary of the Treasury on a specific day and with great fanfare. Then Congress, each year, can battle it out regarding how much a "district share" is (and they must all be the same). That would put a HUGE and very public feedback mechanism into the process and it would limit federal income to what the bulk of the people can actually afford -- of course this would be meaningless without limiting spending to that same amount.

As for corporate versus personal, I used to be strongly in favor of eliminating personal income tax and making it all corporate based on the notion that corporations would be in a position to have the staff needed to deal with the taxation issues plus making it so that the IRS could be a LOT smaller since it would have to deal with a few million corporations compared to that plus over a hundred million individual tax filers. But I've tempered that for a number of reasons and am now caught in between. But regardless of how that balance shakes out, I strongly contend that there is absolutely no reason for the tax code to be as complex as it is. I don't know if it is still in there, but I always had to shake my head when the basic instructions for every filer in the country had to include special provisions for Maine lobster fishermen and other tiny groups of tax filers. A strict word count limit on the tax code should be set and then if Congress wants to pass some special pork provision, they have to figure out a way to eliminate the same number of words from elsewhere in the code.

I think that approach could be useful in a lot of legislative arenas -- cap the length of the total amount of legislation in given areas and then force Congress to continually fight to decide what is important enough to bump out something that is less important. They need to, especially, be forced to do that with the federal budget -- a concept I call Priority Based Budgeting -- in which they can put in all the budget items they want, but they have to assign a priority level to each. Let them fight all day long as to whether the next billion dollars should be spent on defense, or welfare, or infrastructure. And it could be that simple. Break the existing $4 trillion budget into four thousand $1 billion blocks (or one thousand $4 billion dollar blocks or whatever). Those block don't have to be all one flavor, either, but could be a package of items across the spectrum. Then each block is voted on to establish it's priority. Then those blocks are funded, starting with highest priority and working downward, only so far as revenues will support it. I get SO tired of local governments (and the fed is no different) funding landscaping projects around the courthouse while putting up ballot measures to raise taxes to fund fire and police. Instead, they should have to assign priority levels to fire, police, landscaping (and everything else) and then, when the money runs out (meaning when the projected revenues are accounted for in the upcoming budget) they can go to the taxpayers and ask for more money to pay for the group of priority items that would be covered by the next increment of funding.

 

I agree. But I still need to compensate for them in determining what "my fair share" is. A more accurate way of expressing it is that about 20% of my proper tax liability is paid by corporations on my behalf.

Over the decades I've gone back and forth on how I think the lion's share of federal revenue should be derived. The founders intended for it to be dominated by excise taxes, though they allowed for direct taxation by enumeration. I think that approach has a lot going for it. I'd like to see each Congressional district being responsible for presenting its share of the federal coffers to the Secretary of the Treasury on a specific day and with great fanfare. Then Congress, each year, can battle it out regarding how much a "district share" is (and they must all be the same). That would put a HUGE and very public feedback mechanism into the process and it would limit federal income to what the bulk of the people can actually afford -- of course this would be meaningless without limiting spending to that same amount.

As for corporate versus personal, I used to be strongly in favor of eliminating personal income tax and making it all corporate based on the notion that corporations would be in a position to have the staff needed to deal with the taxation issues plus making it so that the IRS could be a LOT smaller since it would have to deal with a few million corporations compared to that plus over a hundred million individual tax filers. But I've tempered that for a number of reasons and am now caught in between. But regardless of how that balance shakes out, I strongly contend that there is absolutely no reason for the tax code to be as complex as it is. I don't know if it is still in there, but I always had to shake my head when the basic instructions for every filer in the country had to include special provisions for Maine lobster fishermen and other tiny groups of tax filers. A strict word count limit on the tax code should be set and then if Congress wants to pass some special pork provision, they have to figure out a way to eliminate the same number of words from elsewhere in the code.

I think that approach could be useful in a lot of legislative arenas -- cap the length of the total amount of legislation in given areas and then force Congress to continually fight to decide what is important enough to bump out something that is less important. They need to, especially, be forced to do that with the federal budget -- a concept I call Priority Based Budgeting -- in which they can put in all the budget items they want, but they have to assign a priority level to each. Let them fight all day long as to whether the next billion dollars should be spent on defense, or welfare, or infrastructure. And it could be that simple. Break the existing $4 trillion budget into four thousand $1 billion blocks (or one thousand $4 billion dollar blocks or whatever). Those block don't have to be all one flavor, either, but could be a package of items across the spectrum. Then each block is voted on to establish it's priority. Then those blocks are funded, starting with highest priority and working downward, only so far as revenues will support it. I get SO tired of local governments (and the fed is no different) funding landscaping projects around the courthouse while putting up ballot measures to raise taxes to fund fire and police. Instead, they should have to assign priority levels to fire, police, landscaping (and everything else) and then, when the money runs out (meaning when the projected revenues are accounted for in the upcoming budget) they can go to the taxpayers and ask for more money to pay for the group of priority items that would be covered by the next increment of funding.

I don't like capitation taxes (i.e. income tax, etc.). But, as long as we have them, I think they ought to hurt -- everyone and a lot. Forget payroll deductions and the magical "windfall" of tax refunds each year. Everyone ought to have to cough up a big check each year -- rich, poor, whatever -- and they ought to feel as screwed as they actually are. Perhaps they would then change their voting habits.

 

Where did I ever say that someone is not paying "enough"?

See your post #324.


If you didn't say it, and you were only quoting someone else, who are you quoting? Please show us the post.

As for this mess...

As for whether I pay "my fair share", the answer is most definitely not. The Federal Budget is presently about $12,000 for every person in the United States, so the "fair share" for my family of three would be $36,000 (just for federal non-SS spending). Allowing for the nearly 20% of revenue that comes from corporate taxes, my fair share of the individual taxes would be about $29,250. I'm not paying even a tenth of that (and, in fact, in some years I haven't paid even 0.1% of that). Even as a percentage of taxable income (or gross income, for that matter), I am not paying anywhere near what the people that are always accused of "not paying their fair share" are paying.

You only have enough income to justify $2900 in Federal income taxes? It seems like you owe it to your family and country as a Ph.D. educated engineer to stop spending so much time on this site and start pulling more of your share of the load.[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry to interrupt the discussion of taxes and schools by addressing the topic of the Thread, but the "war" is still progressing.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/therapist-shot-police-autistic/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-wrong-home-kills-family-dog/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-police-arrested-brutality/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-twitter-criticizing-cops-arrests/

 

Sorry to interrupt the discussion of taxes and schools by addressing the topic of the Thread, but the "war" is still progressing.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/therapist-shot-police-autistic/

This one is just bad. Looks like another panic attack shooting.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...-by-North-Miami-Police-Officer-387716761.html

"My client asked why did you shoot me? The officer told my client, 'I don't know,' that was his words verbatim," attorney Hilton Napoleon told NBC 6. "Another officer asked, 'Why did you shoot this guy?' and the shooting officer said he didn't know why he shot him."

 

The key question is what is "fair"? The liberals wanted the populace to believe that any taxation on others is fair.

The founding fathers intended the government to be of the people, forbthe people and by the people. On that principle, I would argue that the tax base should be as wide as possible, with everyone having a stake in the state of the Union.

What happened is that both parties have severely reduced the tax base over the years. It decimated the middle class and created a Hugh marginal tax against the economically poor.

If you want to understand the state of affairs of the middle class, you just need to look at the retailors that used to sell to the middle class (Macy's, JC Penny's, etc.) And the proliferation of Walmart. It tells you all you need to know about where the middle class is, and where the country is going to be in 10 or 20 years.

Sad.

 

This one is just bad. Looks like another panic attack shooting.

My lingering question is, After they swarmed and shot a random person, what ever happened to the suicidal man with a gun? Is it sufficient that the police just pick some random person and shoot him to stop the "threat" of a suicidal man with a gun?

 

my fair share of the individual taxes would be about $29,250. I'm not paying even a tenth of that (and, in fact, in some years I haven't paid even 0.1% of that)

For a few years during the dot-com boom, I paid more income taxes than Cisco did for those years.

They still tell me that I didn't pay my fair share so I quit working to pay my fair share of taxes now: exactly zero.

 

For a few years during the dot-com boom, I paid more income taxes than Cisco did for those years.

They still tell me that I didn't pay my fair share so I quit working to pay my fair share of taxes now: exactly zero.

Glad to see I didn't interrupt the flow of the conversation.

 

This one is just bad. Looks like another panic attack shooting.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...-by-North-Miami-Police-Officer-387716761.html

Yup, a police officer with all kinds of training is still panicking. I can't wait for my neighbor and his new 1911 startled by is daughter's sleep-over friend in the middle of the night.

The new set of questions for local concerned parents before letting their kid attend a party or sleep-over are apparently:
- will an adult be home?
- will any alcohol be served?
- are there guns in the house?

 

My lingering question is, After they swarmed and shot a random person, what ever happened to the suicidal man with a gun? Is it sufficient that the police just pick some random person and shoot him to stop the "threat" of a suicidal man with a gun?

Looks like complete tunnel vision to the "threat" of a suicidal man with a gun. Every action no matter how innocent by these two men were seen a reinforcing that perception. The man who was shot was a hero to the young man with autism and maybe saved a life that day.

 

Yup, a police officer with all kinds of training is still panicking. I can't wait for my neighbor and his new 1911 startled by is daughter's sleep-over friend in the middle of the night.

The new set of questions for local concerned parents before letting their kid attend a party or sleep-over are apparently:
- will an adult be home?
- will any alcohol be served?
- are there guns in the house?

No need to hide under a blanket and cry, OK.

 

Yup, a police officer with all kinds of training is still panicking. I can't wait for my neighbor and his new 1911 startled by is daughter's sleep-over friend in the middle of the night.
- are there guns in the house?

Good idea.

I have several guns in my house and regularly use them to shot any manner of vermin. My grandson visited this week for about 5 days. He is 15, and we spotted a groundhog from my usual kill-window. He is not accustomed to guns and lives in the DC area. He asked why I didn't shot it. My response was that I would rather let a ground hog live than risk either one of us getting shot.

When he is experienced with guns, I will let him take the shot. In the meantime, there are too many details about gun safety to learn. It is not like fishing. He is great at that.

John