If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
We need some taxes to run our government. I mean the Constitution gives them the right as well as the requirement to do things like defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.DrunkFace wrote:
If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
The debate is how much exactly. And remember there's many Liberials who want the top marginal rate to increase back to 70%.
The tax code is the greatest social engineering piece of law the government has...doubt they would give up control of us without a fight no matter how low we wanted taxes.
Well your top tax bracket is not at 70%, it's not at 50% or even 40%. 35% for earnings over $370k is hardly "high".Harmor wrote:
We need some taxes to run our government. I mean the Constitution gives them the right as well as the requirement to do things like defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.DrunkFace wrote:
If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
The debate is how much exactly. And remember there's many Liberials who want the top marginal rate to increase back to 70%.
The tax code is the greatest social engineering piece of law the government has...doubt they would give up control of us without a fight no matter how low we wanted taxes.
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.DrunkFace wrote:
Well your top tax bracket is not at 70%, it's not at 50% or even 40%. 35% for earnings over $370k is hardly "high".Harmor wrote:
We need some taxes to run our government. I mean the Constitution gives them the right as well as the requirement to do things like defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.DrunkFace wrote:
If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?
The debate is how much exactly. And remember there's many Liberials who want the top marginal rate to increase back to 70%.
The tax code is the greatest social engineering piece of law the government has...doubt they would give up control of us without a fight no matter how low we wanted taxes.
Cybargs is absolutely right here.Cybargs wrote:
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.DrunkFace wrote:
Well your top tax bracket is not at 70%, it's not at 50% or even 40%. 35% for earnings over $370k is hardly "high".Harmor wrote:
We need some taxes to run our government. I mean the Constitution gives them the right as well as the requirement to do things like defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.
The debate is how much exactly. And remember there's many Liberials who want the top marginal rate to increase back to 70%.
The tax code is the greatest social engineering piece of law the government has...doubt they would give up control of us without a fight no matter how low we wanted taxes.
Here in the states we can have taxes leveed at the State, County, and City levels that stack on top of the Federal. E.g. California state has a 10.5% income tax whereas Florida has 0%.
Move to Florida.Harmor wrote:
Cybargs is absolutely right here.Cybargs wrote:
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.DrunkFace wrote:
Well your top tax bracket is not at 70%, it's not at 50% or even 40%. 35% for earnings over $370k is hardly "high".
Here in the states we can have taxes leveed at the State, County, and City levels that stack on top of the Federal. E.g. California state has a 10.5% income tax whereas Florida has 0%.
Why should the Federal Government be held responsible for the taxes of some states?
It... shouldn't?DrunkFace wrote:
Move to Florida.Harmor wrote:
Cybargs is absolutely right here.Cybargs wrote:
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.
Here in the states we can have taxes leveed at the State, County, and City levels that stack on top of the Federal. E.g. California state has a 10.5% income tax whereas Florida has 0%.
Why should the Federal Government be held responsible for the taxes of some states?
Not really. Slowing Down and staying at the speed limit will make your morning commute/Drive safer, standing still will make it safer yet completely in effective and I highly doubt anyone has seriously tried this alternative. Its good to try and take the post at its real intentions and not try and find ways to warp and skew it. You can take it as a complement that I thought this was your intent. I shudder at the other possibilityDrunkFace wrote:
If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
DI to recruit,
DI : " ya like me boy, don't ya, you like me ?.. . .
Recruit : " Yes sir . .
DI : " You mean your queer for me ?
Recruit : " No sir . .
DI : " you sayin you don't like me ?
Recruit : " No sir !
Well taxes are hardly at all time high, in fact on the contrary, there pretty damn low already histrionically speaking, I can't see how lowering them will help the economy that much, but I can see how it will just add further strain on an already over blow government budget.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Not really. Slowing Down and staying at the speed limit will make your morning commute/Drive safer, standing still will make it safer yet completely in effective and I highly doubt anyone has seriously tried this alternative. Its good to try and take the post at its real intentions and not try and find ways to warp and skew it. You can take it as a complement that I thought this was your intent. I shudder at the other possibilityDrunkFace wrote:
If lowering taxes was always a good idea, then wouldn't 0% tax be the best thing of all?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
DI to recruit,
DI : " ya like me boy, don't ya, you like me ?.. . .
Recruit : " Yes sir . .
DI : " You mean your queer for me ?
Recruit : " No sir . .
DI : " you sayin you don't like me ?
Recruit : " No sir !
Good Post ~ Graph Source ?
What you tax has a lot to do with driving the Economy. Taxing cigarettes or DVDs may destroy a narrow sector of Big business. From my own point of view, They are taxing me out of my investment properties*.
OK some one else will own them but as a first home buyer, they wont be paying as much tax as I was. They are demanding more and they will end up with less. They are driving down what was once a good Solid source of Tax Revenue and the safest and best investment a person could make.
What you tax has a lot to do with driving the Economy. Taxing cigarettes or DVDs may destroy a narrow sector of Big business. From my own point of view, They are taxing me out of my investment properties*.
OK some one else will own them but as a first home buyer, they wont be paying as much tax as I was. They are demanding more and they will end up with less. They are driving down what was once a good Solid source of Tax Revenue and the safest and best investment a person could make.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-29 08:00:44)
Drunk is correct that federal taxes are very low at this point in time as compared to historical rates.
On the other hand, Cybargs is correct that local taxes are part of the reason for this.
However, four things are for certain about the American taxation system as compared to other systems....
1) The wealthiest individuals in America pay a significantly lower rate than they would in most other highly developed countries.
2) Corporations generally pay higher tax rates in America than they would in most other countries.
3) America doesn't have a minimum income threshold for taxation like most other countries, so this hurts the poorest of the poor and the working class overall.
4) The American system has far more deductions in place than most other countries, which leads to significantly lower tax revenue than we would have otherwise, and it makes budgeting governmental expenses much more difficult than it really should be.
Essentially, we should tax wealthy individuals more than we currently do, tax corporations less, implement a minimum income threshold for taxation, and eliminate the majority of tax deductions in our system.
That would actually fix our system in terms of budgeting, but it's very unlikely that any of this will happen -- other than maybe lowering taxes on corporations.
On the other hand, Cybargs is correct that local taxes are part of the reason for this.
However, four things are for certain about the American taxation system as compared to other systems....
1) The wealthiest individuals in America pay a significantly lower rate than they would in most other highly developed countries.
2) Corporations generally pay higher tax rates in America than they would in most other countries.
3) America doesn't have a minimum income threshold for taxation like most other countries, so this hurts the poorest of the poor and the working class overall.
4) The American system has far more deductions in place than most other countries, which leads to significantly lower tax revenue than we would have otherwise, and it makes budgeting governmental expenses much more difficult than it really should be.
Essentially, we should tax wealthy individuals more than we currently do, tax corporations less, implement a minimum income threshold for taxation, and eliminate the majority of tax deductions in our system.
That would actually fix our system in terms of budgeting, but it's very unlikely that any of this will happen -- other than maybe lowering taxes on corporations.
Problem is tax the wealthy more and they'll leave you for a nicer place.Turquoise wrote:
Drunk is correct that federal taxes are very low at this point in time as compared to historical rates.
On the other hand, Cybargs is correct that local taxes are part of the reason for this.
However, four things are for certain about the American taxation system as compared to other systems....
1) The wealthiest individuals in America pay a significantly lower rate than they would in most other highly developed countries.
2) Corporations generally pay higher tax rates in America than they would in most other countries.
3) America doesn't have a minimum income threshold for taxation like most other countries, so this hurts the poorest of the poor and the working class overall.
4) The American system has far more deductions in place than most other countries, which leads to significantly lower tax revenue than we would have otherwise, and it makes budgeting governmental expenses much more difficult than it really should be.
Essentially, we should tax wealthy individuals more than we currently do, tax corporations less, implement a minimum income threshold for taxation, and eliminate the majority of tax deductions in our system.
That would actually fix our system in terms of budgeting, but it's very unlikely that any of this will happen -- other than maybe lowering taxes on corporations.
Gates is far from your typical billionaire.
That depends... If you tax them just below the rate that most other countries tax them, then they have no incentive to move. Currently, there is a significant gap between our highest personal tax rates and those of most other countries.Ticia wrote:
Problem is tax the wealthy more and they'll leave you for a nicer place.
Gates is far from your typical billionaire.
True but when you're a millionaire you can pretty much do what the hell you want (island owners,private planes and all) so a country that offers the lowest fiscal policy is always going to be the most attractive.Turquoise wrote:
That depends... If you tax them just below the rate that most other countries tax them, then they have no incentive to move. Currently, there is a significant gap between our highest personal tax rates and those of most other countries.Ticia wrote:
Problem is tax the wealthy more and they'll leave you for a nicer place.
Gates is far from your typical billionaire.
Well, not necessarily. Third World countries have the lowest taxes usually.Ticia wrote:
True but when you're a millionaire you can pretty much do what the hell you want (island owners,private planes and all) so a country that offers the lowest fiscal policy is always going to be the most attractive.Turquoise wrote:
That depends... If you tax them just below the rate that most other countries tax them, then they have no incentive to move. Currently, there is a significant gap between our highest personal tax rates and those of most other countries.Ticia wrote:
Problem is tax the wealthy more and they'll leave you for a nicer place.
Gates is far from your typical billionaire.
Tax havens will always be an issue (like the Cayman Islands), but aside from that, taxes can only go so low before your social systems collapse.
America is on the low end of personal taxation while moving towards the high end of spending. This has to be reconciled soon, and taxes are part of that.
We're talking about people who have their own social system, they're scattered all over the world but the US have been able to keep a good number of them. If you think about it the USA are only an haven for illegal immigrants and the obscenely rich.Turquoise wrote:
Well, not necessarily. Third World countries have the lowest taxes usually.Ticia wrote:
True but when you're a millionaire you can pretty much do what the hell you want (island owners,private planes and all) so a country that offers the lowest fiscal policy is always going to be the most attractive.Turquoise wrote:
That depends... If you tax them just below the rate that most other countries tax them, then they have no incentive to move. Currently, there is a significant gap between our highest personal tax rates and those of most other countries.
Tax havens will always be an issue (like the Cayman Islands), but aside from that, taxes can only go so low before your social systems collapse.
America is on the low end of personal taxation while moving towards the high end of spending. This has to be reconciled soon, and taxes are part of that.
Last edited by Ticia (2010-09-29 07:49:36)
Well, I think we're more than that, but yes, we do have our fair share of both.Ticia wrote:
We're talking about people who have their own social system, they're scattered all over the world but the US have been able to keep a good number of them. If you think about it the USA are only an haven for illegal immigrants and the obscenely rich.Turquoise wrote:
Well, not necessarily. Third World countries have the lowest taxes usually.Ticia wrote:
True but when you're a millionaire you can pretty much do what the hell you want (island owners,private planes and all) so a country that offers the lowest fiscal policy is always going to be the most attractive.
Tax havens will always be an issue (like the Cayman Islands), but aside from that, taxes can only go so low before your social systems collapse.
America is on the low end of personal taxation while moving towards the high end of spending. This has to be reconciled soon, and taxes are part of that.
I would still suggest that we could raise taxes on the wealthy without many negative repercussions because of just how much most of the rest of the First World taxes them.
As long as we couple that with lower corporate taxes, we'll see the desired reinvestment trends.
I " cherry picked " your post but I believe I stayed true to your intent. If not I hope you'll tell me.Turquoise wrote:
1) The wealthiest individuals in America pay a significantly lower rate than they would in most other highly developed countries.
Essentially, we should tax wealthy individuals more than we currently do, .
You do realize that the wealthy currently pay the lions share of the tax we collect.
Today a big portion of the Federal Income Tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans.
The wealthiest 1% of the population earn 19% of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax collected.
The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.The bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Just as the NYC attempt to " take a little more from the wealthy people " back fired on them. Continually leaning on the money makers can drive them off and stifle their incentive to take risks and achieve in the future. Ignore this at our peril.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-29 08:23:42)
still waiting on your definition of imminent harmor
Tu Stultus Es
You have the worst sentence structure and punctuation !eleven bravo wrote:
still waiting on your definition of imminent harmor
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-29 08:25:25)
ok, youre officially a troll. I dont think anyone could be as box of rocks retarded as you seem to be.
Tu Stultus Es
What is the problem ? You don't remember leaving an identical comment on one of my posts ? That didn't make you a troll ? I wouldn't call people retarded, as in your case it would draw closer examination that you surely wouldn't want.eleven bravo wrote:
ok, youre officially a troll. I dont think anyone could be as box of rocks retarded as you seem to be.
And all of that would change if we eliminated the various deductions we have in our system. The rich would still pay the majority of taxes but not anymore of a percentage of the burden than what they actually have of total wealth in our society.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I " cherry picked " your post but I believe I stayed true to your intent. If not I hope you'll tell me.Turquoise wrote:
1) The wealthiest individuals in America pay a significantly lower rate than they would in most other highly developed countries.
Essentially, we should tax wealthy individuals more than we currently do, .
You do realize that the wealthy currently pay the lions share of the tax we collect.
Today a big portion of the Federal Income Tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans.
The wealthiest 1% of the population earn 19% of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax collected.
The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.The bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Just as the NYC attempt to " take a little more from the wealthy people " back fired on them. Continually leaning on the money makers can drive them off and stifle their incentive to take risks and achieve in the future. Ignore this at our peril.
Most other taxation systems (like Canada's) do not have so many deductions available, and this is why tax revenue is easier to project in those systems as compared to ours.
You make valid points but many deductions are designed to keep the money working for and in the economy. Making Investments a deduction creates a big source of cash for start up companies ventures and capitalism in general. Taxing them would empty that same pool. The capital gains tax is an example. It lessens your incentive to take risks so that money ( not invested ) will not stimulate the economy. Will the government subsidize me if my investment fails ? If not why should they feel entitled to such a big share if my efforts succeed. The money that got me a Tax deduction was put back into the economy and that should be their primary concern in my opinion. They are losing site of the very purpose of the Deductions original design. They just see " More Money " . Its short sighted.
I think you got this all wrong. In the US cities and states usually have a sales tax to fund state and local stuff (police, schools etc...) while theres a federal income tax and that money goes to the fed government for military, fed programs etc. It's a huge bureaucracy in the US lol.DrunkFace wrote:
Move to Florida.Harmor wrote:
Cybargs is absolutely right here.Cybargs wrote:
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.
Here in the states we can have taxes leveed at the State, County, and City levels that stack on top of the Federal. E.g. California state has a 10.5% income tax whereas Florida has 0%.
Why should the Federal Government be held responsible for the taxes of some states?