Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How To Create A Fair And Balanced Federal Tax Code.

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 5:55 p.m. EST by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million.

There should be a 2 percent annual surtax on all fortunes over $7 million.

The estate tax should be 55 percent and kicks in after $1 million.

Capital gains should be taxed at 35 percent.

End the home mortgage deduction on all homes over $750,000.

Corporations should be taxed by a variable amount based on the percentage of payroll going to US workers. A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range. Eliminate corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies and end offshore tax haven abuse.

82 Comments

82 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 7 years ago

And you recommendations for this tax code is based on what research? Or did you just wake up one fine morning and decided to write down some number on the textbox? Looks like it

[-] 1 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 8 years ago

I have my own tax scheme, but I will restrain myself long enough to give you a fair critique.

Capital gains: I see no reason for giving any preference to capital gains over wage income. Any incentive arguments applied to capital gains applies all the more strongly to labor - since investment depends on labor creating something to invest in, to encourage labor is also to encourage investment. As Lincoln put it: "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Home Mortgage Deduction: a basic home can be valued this high if you live in the wrong area. I think this number needs to be raised quite a lot - or better, how about just ending the deduction on all extra homes past the first?

Estate tax: this also is too low a figure for that tax level. A hard-working middle-class guy who has a decent job and doesn't spend too much and invests wisely can end up with this much - take half of that away, really? What the estate tax is for is to address the really large accumulations of wealth that otherwise snowball all over everything else. Somebody leaving a million to his kids is not a threat to the republic - but certainly once it gets into billions, you're seeing the development of large-scale unearned power (see Koch Brothers.) How about making it a sliding scale? Low around a million, high around a billion. It's really something that should change with the scale of the economy, I think - and be tied into an inequality measure, perhaps.

Marginal tax rates: given the scale of our economy, you can actually get plenty of revenue setting the brackets at higher income levels - in fact, you can give a break to some of the lower levels. My notion is, we want to make it easier to become a millionaire, but harder to then become a billionaire, than it is now. People have billion-dollar incomes, should they pay same as $15 million? Let all the current brackets apply for double their current income levels, say, and just start adding brackets above that - maybe one for each order of magnitude. For example, (M = million) 1M pays 30%, 10M pays 40%, 100M pays 50%, 1B pays 60%.

Corporate tax - rewarding local payroll is a good idea, but corporate taxes should scale with profit levels as well. Mom-and-Pop businesses really suffer under a rate that is laughable for the big guys. We want to encourage the growth of small businesses, but the big guys don't need it if their business is sustainable - and it isn't, it probably shouldn't be encouraged anyway.

Surtax: I haven't really thought through the issues with a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so for now I'd lean against, although I can think of at least one argument for it.

Consider trying to find some income distribution data and trying out your tax on it. I think you'd probably be surprised at how much revenue you'd be raising with that - tax rates really don't have to be as high as we think to solve this problem, once they're actually distributed across the spectrum in a reasonable way. (I just have patchwork data gathered from different sources, so I have to be very conservative in my estimates, but it's become clear that the tax problem isn't as hard as it looks.)

[-] 2 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 8 years ago

Okay, fair response I believe, and hopefully it's now legit to plug for my own solution: http://occupywallst.org/forum/simplest-suitably-progressive-tax-rlogincomepovert/

The basic idea is to, instead of our current complicated stairstep approximation of a fairly distributed progressive tax, it turns out we can raise revenue both more efficiently and more fairly by using a single smooth curve. The simplest smooth curve that seemed to me to do a good job of distributing taxes in a way as to be minimally burdening was one that set tax rates at R*log(Income/Poverty), where the poverty level is $11,161 right now, "log" means logarithm base 10 if you're a math nerd, and the 'log' button on the calculator if you're not, and R is determined by how much money is needed for revenue. This tax, applied to personal income and corporate profit, could replace all federal tax revenue, including SS and Medicare.

This year, we're spending 3.7 trillion. That makes R = 8.83. So, those at poverty level pay no taxes, and the rate then slowly climbs from 0% to 4.2% at a median income of $33750. The effect of the logarithm is that when you multiply your income by ten, you add R to your tax rate. So someone with an income of $111,610 yearly income would pay 8.83%, an income of a million would pay about 2 8.83 = 17.66%, ten million pays 38.83 = 26.49%, and everybody below about 25 million ends up getting a tax cut. The average corporation makes half a million a year, so they'd be getting a large tax cut - down to 14%. By the time you get up to the world record 45 billion Exxon made, the tax rate gets up to 58% - which is pretty high, but is still well within historical norms and much lower than it was during our most prosperous times. But simply because it's shared out in a fair and continuous way, it provides all the revenue we need, while making many of our subsidies unnecessary.

It also encourages businesses to put some of their profits back into wages, in part by eliminating the labor tax and also by giving them a way to manipulate their taxes: they can lessen the higher taxes on the large pile of profit by sharing some of it out into higher wages - and, the higher wages go, the lower R goes, and it's the guys with the highest rates who then stand to gain the most from increasing employment and raising wages. This plan puts the incentives where we want them. In addition, its mere simplicity - the tax code can be put on a bumper sticker - is of significant value; with such clarity in the tax code, it would be much easier for people to be informed about both tax and budget issues. If we paid off the 15T debt in twenty years, for example, that would add 27% to everyone's taxes - it would affect everybody exactly the same in that sense, and everyone could know how much it would cost them personally to do it and could make a decision on that basis. Anyway, that's my plug, I have more details and explanation of methods and a very nice chart available in the other thread.

[-] 1 points by knitknee1969 (2) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 7 years ago

I'm intrigued, but can't figure out where you got the R=8.83. I can work with logarithms, but don't see the logarithmic connection (if there is one) between 3.7 trillion and 8.83. Once I can understand that, the rest of your thesis makes a lot of sense.

[-] 1 points by knitknee1969 (2) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 7 years ago

I, too, have given some serious thought to this subject which I believe is at the root of why we even have an OWS movement. My solution is not nearly as elegant as Swifton's but is similar in effect. I wrote it in a way that I thought would be easy to understand, but readers can judge for themselves: A TAX CODE FOR THE REST OF US

Our tax code should:

Be Fair and Equitable - Nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax. Everyone should pay something, but in accordance with one’s ability to pay.

Be Simple - Our current tax code is so huge, there is no agreement on exactly how large it is. A word counter on Title 26 (IRS) comes up with 3.4 million words (the bible has about 750K). The instructions for filling out a 1040 tax return is over 160 pages (41 pages for the “EZ” form). IRS employs over 90K people, costing the taxpayers over $11 billion/year, just to ensure that everyone is paying the taxes they owe.

Encourage Investment and Saving - Investing creates jobs giving people the ability to pay for the government services they receive. Saving makes people more self sufficient, and less reliant on the government for their needs. These are critical elements for a healthy sustainable economy. A good tax code will provide incentives for investing and saving.

FAIR, EQUITABLE & SIMPLE: A straightforward graduated tax on income would be simple to understand, implement and enforce. Tax rates would be low enough (especially on the lower income levels) to eliminate the need for personal exemptions and the married v. single allowances. Interest and dividend income would generally be taxed as ordinary earned income (some important exceptions to this will be explained shortly). Everyone who earned any amount of income, would file an individual tax return annually.

The lowest tax bracket would be 1%, applicable to all income up to $10,000. For the next $10,000 (10K to 20K) tax would be 2%. For the next $10,000 (20K to 30K) tax would be 3%. For the next $10,000 (30K to 40K) tax would be 4%. For the next $10,000 (40K to 50K) tax would be 5%. For the next $50,000 (50K to 100K) tax would be 10%. For the next $100,000 (100K to 200K) tax would 15%. All income in excess of 200K would be taxed at 20%.

Some examples:

Someone earning $25,000 would pay $450 in tax ($100 for 1st 10K, $200 for 2nd, and $150 on next 5K). An effective tax rate of 1.8%.

A married couple earning $50,000 ($25K each) would pay $900 in tax ($450 X 2), the same effective tax rate of 1.8%.

Someone earning $50,000 would pay $1,500 in tax, an effective tax rate of 3%.

Someone earning $100,000 would pay $6,500 in tax, an effective rate of 6.5%.

Someone earning $1,000,000 would pay $181.5K in tax, and effective rate of 18.15%. Since the tax rates on the lowest income levels are nominal, everyone earning any amount of income should be able to afford their share of tax. Most of those earning 100’s of thousands and millions in income would probably shoulder more of the national tax burden than they presently do, but would never pay more than 20% of their earnings in tax.

ENCOURAGING SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT: In order to encourage savings, especially savings for health care and education, a special savings account would be created into which savers could deposit up to 25% of their annual income and avoid paying taxes on that amount. When the money is withdrawn (only for educational or health purposes) no tax would be assessed on any interest earned on the tax free principal. With more people saving more for their own health and educational needs, the government would likely not have to pay out as much for these essential services.

In regard to dividends, they would be taxed as ordinary income to the recipient only if the corporation received a tax benefit in paying the dividend. Otherwise, if the corporation paid tax on the dividend, the recipient would get the dividend without having to pay individual taxes on it.

OTHER TAXES: Corporations would pay a 15% corporate tax rate - no exceptions. This is about equal to the average effective corporate tax rate today.

Capital gains on assets held more than a year (including real estate and personal residences) would pay the corporate rate - no exceptions. Gains on assets held less than a year would pay taxes as ordinary individual income. This would encourage serious investment for the long term, and treat speculative investment as it ought to be treated - more like gambling.

The form for filing a tax return would not exceed a single page, maybe even an index card if one applies for a barcode label that would provide name, social security number, birth date/location, and contact information.

Such a streamlined tax code would require far fewer resources to administer and enforce. Of course, there would be an impact on jobs, as tens of thousands of IRS employees, tax lawyers, lobbyists and preparers would lose the basis for their employment. However, with a broader base, lower overall tax structure, and incentives for savings and investment, job growth in all other areas should provide plenty of employment opportunities for those displaced.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

thank you very much for your input

[-] 1 points by maxkoda (52) 8 years ago

To Plunder is not the answer! Taxation is theft!

My interpretation of your title is: "How To Create A Fair And Balanced Way To Steal From The People."

and that doesn't make sense.

Federal Tax Code = Scheme to take what is not yours to begin with.

Read that tax code. It is the essence of evil deception. When I read it I think of that possessed girl in the movie The Exorcist - when her head spins around on her shoulders... Read the tax code and see for yourself. What would be fair is to burn that code and remove it from presence of humanity!

Let's not fool ourselves, and let's be honest here - - IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!

IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY WE WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THOSE WHO DO HAVE IT. WHY? BECAUSE WE REALLY, REALLY, WANT TO!

Some people have a lot of money because they are smart and worked hard for it. Others, because they are slimy, corrupt, thieves, who would cut their mother's throat for a few bucks. The first are to be honored, the latter, thrown in jail for a long time. I think you want to focus on the second case. The answer is not to take their money - that's addressing the symptom. Go after the cure with the rule of law (and by the way, our justice system is so corrupt. We need to take an ax to that system as well).

If you are looking to take away from the rich look at the Federal Government. It has the deepest pockets of all (because it has been stealing for so long). Let's take the money from there! Slash government programs (like dept of defense, dept of education, EPA, FDA, dept of Agriculture). Let's slash those programs and return the money to the people! And let's not forget, shutdown the Federal Reserve! Eliminate the Social Security Ponzi Scheme!

We want to take away corporate jets? Why didn't anyone talk about taking away Air Force One. Do we really get any value from the President taking all those expensive trips? Make him drive, or take a boat. I think then the importance of all those trips at tax payer expense would become a little less important to the national interest (and the president might actually stay home and do some work). Oh I forgot, we (taxpayers) did buy Obama those expensive buses for his latest reelection campaign trip! In addition to Air Force One. Remember that Nancy Pelosi wanted her version of Air Force One to fly back and forth in style! These government politicians (crooks) are just as bad as the banksters. Please do not forget them and how they rape us financially. They are partners in crime with the banksters! This evil system was designed by them as a joint venture!

The only reason that Wall Street and the banksters can steal from us with no penalty is because the Federal Government is running their protection racket for them! The answer is not to increase the funding for the protection racket!

The U.S. Federal government is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen! Focus on that to solve the problem. Don't look to steal from your neighbor my friend!

(My Rant! --- I have got it off my chest - for now. You really got me going with this post).

[-] 1 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 8 years ago

US Federal government a bigger fraud than Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, really?

We all know there are problems with government; that's why most of us want to make it more accountable, to make those problems easier to get at. But relatively few are willing to chuck government altogether and go for anarchy - not least because it's not clear how anarchy could actually sustain itself. But if you're not an anarchist, and you demand some kind of government, then clearly it follows you'll have to have a way to fund it. Until someone comes up with a better method, that's taxes.

Taxes are not theft. Taxes are the inevitable consequence of government. And without a government, what would keep everything you have from being stolen?

Unless you're an anarchist, you're making a strategic mistake. You want government and corporations to be kept from doing bad things. What can keep corporations from doing bad things, but a government - and therefore taxes? And what can keep a government from doing bad things, but a vigilant citizenry who is willing to go outside and raise a fuss from time to time? You are attacking the closest thing to an ally you have.

[-] 1 points by maxkoda (52) 8 years ago

That government is best which governs least!

You seem to be obsessed with schemes to redistribute wealth - that which does not belong to you. Don't waste your time practicing the art-of-plunder. It does not build character.

How do I protect my wealth? I own guns. Are you against that?

Why not get rid of taxes, and have the government operate off donations? I'd choose that over plunder!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

make the president walk, i say!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

take away air force 1 and replace it with a piper cub!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

keep up the good fight

[-] 1 points by MachineryofPolitics (1) 8 years ago

Some really good ideas in here, but they will never be voted into law by our current corrupt government. The rich have such control over our politics through campaign contributions that these ideas will never even be DISCUSSED.

The real solution is to break the connection between the rich and our politicians. If we can eliminate the elite's control over our politics, then we can hope for a better tax code, along with many other things to support the 99%.

How can we break their grip on policy? Go to www.machineryofpolitics.com to read my book of suggestions FOR FREE!

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

Force Change, Boycott Capitalism

We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.

When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back many years to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.

Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that all government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.

Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change -- http://wesower.org

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

all current federal politicians need to be voted out of office and replaced with politicians not tied to special interests

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 8 years ago

Tax The Stagnant Money, Mr. President! By Norton Sound, 11-11

Taxes on the few thousand 1% individuals?--keep your money! That is not going to make a difference in funding a social safety net. The corporations who are hoarding money while laying off workers and oursourcing are the source of stifled exchange. That money, if it is just sitting there is being held back to intimidate the average person and make even those still working fear for their job status. TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY. TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY, TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY, Sorry about that, but what we need to tell our leaders is that all we need to do to get that money flowing and jobs going is to, ahem...welll you know. Pass it on! Have a great weekend!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

the stagnant money is already taxed

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 8 years ago

You are correct, what my rant implies though is to levy a penalty tax upon monies that are losing value due to inflation anyway.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

thanks

[-] 1 points by Rael (176) 8 years ago

So, they tax you at 70% and then tax you again every year for keeping the money you were taxed on? Really?

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

are you in my 70% tax bracket?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I don't think the annual surtax on fortunes over $7M is fair. If people already paid income tax, likely at a higher rate, why make them pay it again?

And a 55% estate tax on estates over $1M? $1M is not really that large of an estate for someone who worked hard their entire life to support their family. It is well within the realm of the middle class.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

you may not be aware of it but our country needs revenue. we have a deficit.

ok estate tax $2M

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I just don't like the idea of taxing people twice. It is like a punishment for a lifetime of hard work. Very unAmerican. If you need more revenue, raise the marginal income tax rates. Don't tax people twice though. The deficit should also be tackle through spending cuts.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

Dear Mooks,

Most of these people make money from money. They don't even get up from their chair to make a million dollars. They are not like you. You probably have a real job.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I do have a real job but I also "make money from money" from my computer chair. And even though I am part of the 99%, I will likely retire and eventually die with an estate worth at least a couple of million dollars. I would rather that money go to my children and grandchildren than to federal government to be squandered away. I pay income tax, I pay capital gains tax, and I also pay dividend tax. I also pay property taxes and income taxes at the local and state level. All of my assets have already been taxed to death.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

ok 3M

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

It could be $100M and I still would not think it is fair because it is double taxation.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 8 years ago

Taxes on the few thousand 1% individuals, keep your money. That is not going to make a difference in funding a social safety net. The corporations who are hoarding money while laying off workers and oursourcing are the source of stifled exchange. That money, if it is just sitting there is being held back to intimidate the average person and make even those still working fear for their job status. TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY. TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY, TAX THE STAGNANT MONEY, Sorry about that, but what we need to tell our leaders is that all we need to do to get that money flowing and jobs going is to, ahem...welll you know. Pass it on! Have a great weekend!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

corporations are sitting on $2 trillion because there is very low demand in the economy right now. doesn't pay to expand if no one buys. you have to get demand up.

one way - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create millions of jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians to extricate ourselves from the Great Recession now and increase productivity later.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 8 years ago

That is an excellent idea, but it will not pass the filibuster. Demand is down because employment is uncertain. If they want to do business in our country then they must not spread fear. Go do business somewhere else, we can find another accontant to push the numbers around and balance the ledger. Come on, America, have some standards and faith in ourselves. Get the carpetbaggers out, and keep thinking we have genius among us today, like you.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

thanks

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

Fawankie, I see you live in florida where you have no state income tax. I applaud florida for not having an income tax. Now what has happened to the states that have an income tax? Many have huge deficits and their residents have move to Florida and a few otheR states that have no income tax. So those states lost revenues from people moving. When you raise taxes to the extent you are proposing people leave to lower tax jurisdictions, for enough time each year to ensure they avoid the high taxes. The 1 percent can and will do this and tax revenues will go down bigtime.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

change the law to prevent it

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

You cannot force people to live where the government wants them to live. If you are outside our country and deemed a non resident you cannot be taxed as a full time citizen. You cannot pass a law taking away a person citizenship that is unconstitutional. For goodness sake we treat illlegal aliens better than that.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

ok, how about this

• End the tax dodging that occurs when a business incorporates in a tax haven, pretending to be a foreign corporation for U.S. tax purposes while, in reality, being managed and controlled from the United States, and taking advantage of all the commercial, educational, and other infrastructure financed by U.S. taxpayers. • End financial gimmickry that allows hedge funds to engage in transactions designed for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes on dividends. • Put the “economic substance doctrine,” eliminating tax benefits for transactions that have no real business purpose apart from avoiding taxes, in the Internal Revenue Code. • Impose restrictions on foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, or international transactions that are of primary money laundering concern or that impede U.S. tax enforcement. • Increase disclosure of offshore accounts and close foreign trust, equity swap, and other loopholes used to avoid or evade taxes.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

First the IRS has a law that is called permanent establishment which does not allow corporations to do what you say they do, and it is enforced. Corporation are taxed at the highest tax rate in the world on profits made here in the USA. So what happens ....they expand operations overseas in low tax countries. They create jobs overseas. They generate cash overseas and if they elect to permanently keep the cash overseas it is never taxed in the USA. If they bring it back its taxed at 35 percent. So the tax law creates an incentive to move jobs away from the USA.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

knucklehead - jobs are moved overseas because people are willing to work for 10 cents an hour!

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

You like to demean people by name calling. I understand its also labor cost are lower, regulatory costs are lower, too. But manufacturing and other good jobs have been moved to high wage countries, not just China, such as Ireland. All because of lower taxes. I am trying toexplain to you something you have no expertise in, so refrain from name calling.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

no corp in america pays 35%, anyway. some don't pay at all while the avg corp pays closer to 18% and we're still getting our clock cleaned

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

Of course they do not pay the 35 rate because they earn income outside the USA. Our tax laws encourage corporations to create jobs overseas. Between high US taxes and higher wages, they make it elsewhere.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

they don't because of corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies, end offshore tax haven abuse

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

You can disagree with the tax laws as written, but they were written by both parties down in washingtom. We are in a global economy whether we like it or not, and companies will headqusrter and make stuff in the cheapest locations where ever that maybe.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

change the fucking tax laws!

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

Raise taxes to 100% all over the board and be done with it.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

you're a little too simple minded

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

If you want to live in America and earn lots of money then you have to pay taxes. It is simple.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

taxes are the price we pay for civilization

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

Exactly. Hence 100% taxes for a 100% civilization.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

we don't need that much civilization

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

How much do we need?

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

70%

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

But we want 100% civilization. Though 70% flat tax is good too. You with me?

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

i'm with you, comrade!

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 8 years ago

Viva la Resistance!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

Oui!

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

You call that fair and balanced? Ill address each of your items separately.

1) Most people who make alot of money already pay over 50%. 15.2% to SSI/medicare, 20-35% in income taxes, 6-11% in sales taxes, a couple of percent on property taxes, and then add up the excise and garbage taxes on utilities, cell phones and other items, it is well over 50%.

2) So double taxation because people have money is ok with you. Fail. So if someone paid your dream amount of 50% that means they would be paying another 20% every 10 years on any money they hold. So after 20 years they would pay basically 90%.

3) Once again the estate tax is double taxation. See 2 above.

4) You stimulate more investment by lowering that tax rate. You do realize that people's retirement savings are taxed on a capital gains rates. What are you trying to do force more people to accept SSI and further burden the system by eliminating any chance of means testing it?

5) Right do exactly what you rail against and make special considerations only for certain people.

6) Corporate tax is nothing more than a double tax passed on to consumers anyways. And if i am allowed to take all my money abroad i will gladly give up my citizenship to keep it all. I will do it today. Why should i have to pay double tax because i want to live somewhere else?

Typical leftist have no idea how economics works, and thinks that people who do well in life are somehow born with a tattoo on their asses that says "Owned by America". People aren't slaves to your twisted viewpoints.

[-] 1 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 8 years ago

Estate tax combined with any other tax at all could be considered double taxation. Nevertheless, we should have some kind of estate tax. The reason is to prevent - or at least slow - the concentration of wealth into inherited wealth, and the growth of a new aristocratic class, as discussed by Jefferson and Adams an other founding fathers. Here's the first relevant Jefferson quote I found just now, the context is a visit to France:

"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands ... But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. ... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

[-] 1 points by ynot (48) 8 years ago

Many super-rich are saying that the current system is unfair and wrong and they advise the government to change it. Don't you read the latest news on this matter? The system is wrong. Benefits the rich.

ynot

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

when even THEY admit it, there must be a big problem

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

What super rich? hollywood narcissists who don't pay taxes at the rate they support? Warren Buffett who dodges every bit of taxes he can?

There is nothing illegal about not taking deductions, but yet these people you speak of don't do that. Did you know you can actually right a check to the treasury for whatever amount you want? Why haven't these super rich people just written a check for 75% of their wealth to the Treasury if they are so sincere? Because they are FULL OF SHIT.

[-] 1 points by ynot (48) 8 years ago

Off course for you and the likes, WB is a tax dodger, because he calls it the way things are. You said "" There is nothing illegal about not taking deductions, "" who is talking abt illegal? Stick to the subject: immoral, unfair, benefits a very few. That is what it is in question and that is what will be resolved sooner or latter, make no mistake. Just read some history and you will understand what is coming for the rich and super rich. Start reading abt France under Louis the XVI, Russia under the Tzars and what happen to many more other greedy kings in Europe. Read this: "" Nearly 300 of the nation's most profitable companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5 percent from 2008 to 2010, less than half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate, according to a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice released Thursday. Of the 280 companies, 78 studied paid a tax rate of zero or less during at least one year of the three year period. "" All here : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FBusiness+%28Business+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

All that done under the current law. And because all of them are FULL OF SHIT. OK I admit, more money than shit Unreal; some profitable corporations even get money back from you and you are all happy. Surely you are going to claim that the money that they did not pay in taxes was used to create jobs. Petty that most of those jobs were created in China, Brazil, etc. not the USA. And you still support the system. Good for you.

ynot

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

i like that you read. jimbo may have a problem with that

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

Didnt' say i was in support of all of the current system i was talking about using the so called rich altruists to bolster support, when they are hypocrites. I tend to only bolster support from people who are not hypocrites.

[-] 1 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 8 years ago

You are demanding a pointless sacrifice from them and calling them hypocrites for not doing it. They're not saying "Many of the country's problems could be solved if I, personally, sent all my money to the Treasury." That is a spit in the bucket! It is not just pointless, it would be counterproductive, because it would rob them of the ability to go out and say in public, for the benefit of those who may choose to listen to them - and that's a lot of people; that's what makes them celebrities - "Many of the country's problems could be solved if the rich paid their fair share."

Of course, your line of argument is frequently featured in Republican media as a way to simultaneously engage in ad hominem - that is, attacking the messenger to conceal the fact you cannot debate the message - and to trivialize the points that have been made by others. If that's not your intent, that's something to think about.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

knucklehead - the top rate was 90% in the 1950's and there was no implosion of the economy

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Actually, 91%-92% through the 50s, and about the same through the 60s.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

correct

[-] 1 points by Rael (176) 8 years ago

Sure there was. Remember the 70's? Stagflation, malaise, interest rates at about 15% on homes, etc. Any of this ringing a bell?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Can you say, oil crises?

[-] 1 points by Rael (176) 8 years ago

Yes I remember. Gas went all the way up to one dollar a gallon.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

What was the percentage increase? What was that dollar worth in 2011 dollars?

[-] 1 points by Rael (176) 8 years ago

Probably about what a gallon of gas costs today.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

i still have malaise

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

And it stifled the economy. jFK pushed for and signed tax legislation that created the capital gains rate of 10 percent and the investment tax credit to spur the economy. Rates were brought down as compensation moved to equity based comp to avoid the high tax bracket. It was not a republican but a democratic president that created the capital gains low tax rate. Now today the change should be to tax hedge funds and PE firms as corporations as the capital gains rate should not be used for their activities.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

president clinton had the biggest tax increase in history and created 22 million jobs!

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

Clinton is the first to say you do not raise taxes in a down economy. His new book just released makes this very point. Clinton knew what he was doing and he worked with a republican congress to balance the budget. He was able to raise taxes as he did because the economy was strong. It was the right policy at the right time. He did not ever nor would he ever support the level of taxes you are proposing.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

laws that were changed on clinton's watch played a big part in the financial meltdown. i'm afraid he's corrupt, too

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

And how many people paid that? Almost nobody. Do some homework and tell me the percentage of people who had to pay the 90%? Nice talking point though.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

ok, they paid more like 60%

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

Kind of like now in the taxes i eluded too when you add them all up.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 8 years ago

different