jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes.

---

Politicians cant get re elected mentioning such realities.

BearFan33 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

#LiberalPrivilege

---

Now, that is non-sense. Many, many folks that lean or are left of center, are NO WAY privileged . You may want to get out more.

BearFan33 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

#LiberalPrivilege

---

Now, that is non-sense. Many, many folks that lean or are left of center, are NO WAY privileged . You may want to get out more.

---

The reference was to Hunter being pardoned. He is above the law as he has #LiberalPrivilege

---

I buy that!

Except with our progressive income tax system the rich pay a higher percentage of their income. Recently, Elon Musk paid billions in taxes, the highest anyone has ever paid. (Curiously, I saw a headline a couple weeks ago reporting that someone had just paid more.)

The tax code is deliberately complicated & confusing so that sometimes rich corporations can use "loopholes" to pay little if no taxes. They all try to limit their tax burden, naturally, but I don't know how much success they actually have.

historian said:

---

Except with our progressive income tax system the rich pay a higher percentage of their income. Recently, Elon Musk paid billions in taxes, the highest anyone has ever paid. (Curiously, I saw a headline a couple weeks ago reporting that someone had just paid more.)

The tax code is deliberately complicated & confusing so that sometimes rich corporations can use "loopholes" to pay little if no taxes. They all try to limit their tax burden, naturally, but I don't know how much success they actually have.

---

Yes. That's raw dollars and the rich overwhelmingly pay the majority of the taxes.

The tax code can limit taxation. I pay myself exactly what I made at my corporate job but as a business owner I pay almost no taxes on my personal income so, in essence, I make far more money.

It's not that they are wrong it's that the issue is much too complex for "the rich need to pay more" to be the cure. They dont really want to tax the rich more. They want to make them not rich.

jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes. Around 40% don't pay any federal taxes of any kind. But they can't spend us into oblivion unless they can convince their godless voters to increase taxes at all times.

---

They actually know, for the most part, that the upper class contributes the most. What they want is additional tax brackets, because making 5 million a year is different from making 5 billion a year, and nobody truly needs 5 billion. And it is a fair point, that someone making even 500 million a year is profiting off of many others, making much less money. Nobody making 50m is doing it with their own 2 hands.

I support a progressive tax system, and not only would I let the tax cuts expire in 2025, I'd also created 3 or 4 new tax brackets at 15m, 50m, 100m, and 250m. Conservatives seem to not understand basic accounting. Revenue needs to exceed spending in order to make a dent in 30 trillion dollars of debt.

nein51 said:

---

historian said:

---

Except with our progressive income tax system the rich pay a higher percentage of their income. Recently, Elon Musk paid billions in taxes, the highest anyone has ever paid. (Curiously, I saw a headline a couple weeks ago reporting that someone had just paid more.)

The tax code is deliberately complicated & confusing so that sometimes rich corporations can use "loopholes" to pay little if no taxes. They all try to limit their tax burden, naturally, but I don't know how much success they actually have.

---

Yes. That's raw dollars and the rich overwhelmingly pay the majority of the taxes.

The tax code can limit taxation. I pay myself exactly what I made at my corporate job but as a business owner I pay almost no taxes on my personal income so, in essence, I make far more money.

It's not that they are wrong it's that the issue is much too complex for "the rich need to pay more" to be the cure. They dont really want to tax the rich more. They want to make them not rich.

---

In reality, when the Dems raise taxes it's the middle & lower classes who always end up paying more. There will always be loopholes & the super rich will always find legal ways to keep more of the money they earned. Those of us further down don't have as many options. And when taxes are increased on corporations, big or small, it's always the consumer who pays more through higher prices.

None of this even touched on inflation which is a hidden tax that hurts everyone, especially the poor.

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes. Around 40% don't pay any federal taxes of any kind. But they can't spend us into oblivion unless they can convince their godless voters to increase taxes at all times.

---

They actually know, for the most part, that the upper class contributes the most. What they want is additional tax brackets, because making 5 million a year is different from making 5 billion a year, and nobody truly needs 5 billion. And it is a fair point, that someone making even 500 million a year is profiting off of many others, making much less money. Nobody making 50m is doing it with their own 2 hands.

I support a progressive tax system, and not only would I let the tax cuts expire in 2025, I'd also created 3 or 4 new tax brackets at 15m, 50m, 100m, and 250m. Conservatives seem to not understand basic accounting. Revenue needs to exceed spending in order to make a dent in 30 trillion dollars of debt.

---

That's entirely the wrong way of thinking. No one has any right to say how much someone else needs or how much is too much for someone else. It's quite literally none of my business how much money you make or how you use it. The only exceptions is that crimes must be punished & politicians should be punished didn't more if they violate the public trust & abuse their power (bribery, extortion, kickbacks, etc).

This entire discussion demonstrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers Hefner they placed a ban on income taxes in the original constitution. All they do is make it easier for a government to rob the people, makes government richer & more powerful, and thus leads to more corruption & tyranny. Nothing good comes from it.

Anyone who truly wants freedom should prioritize the repeal of the 16th amendment.

---

It is none of your business how much I make, but it sure is the IRS's, and the government's. Of course this is just my opinion, only worth 1/330,000,000, as is yours, but you are entirely wrong. Your logic leads to the conclusion of a flat tax rate, which is absolutely, undeniably, backwards. Elon Musk should not pay the same tax rate as a single mother who has trouble feeding her children.

I am a big proponent of limiting the power of the federal government, and giving power back to the states, but there are certain obligations the federal government has now, that it did not have in the 1770s.

Anyone wanting to go back to that structure is simply ignorant of reality. There is no responsible way to end social security, end medicare/medicaid, or make all 50 states responsible for their own armed forces. And it would be dumb to try. Maybe social security could be phased out, but that is the only large expense that could be.

A progressive federal income tax is really the best solution, and conveniently, what we have. Once you accept that reality, the idea that billionaires should pay the sane rate as measly millionaires becomes silly.

jbbear said:

---

It's not a revenue problem. Tax receipts are at all time levels. It's a spending problem

---

It is both, but the issue with only cutting spending is the enormity of the debt. In 2005, you could have said "we will just cut spending" but today that will not cut it. And realistically, cutting beyond a certain point would be political suicide. Letting the tax cuts expire is something a 2nd term President could do.

I am sympathetic to the idea that if you tax more, the idiots in Congress will spend more, but paying a debt is dependant on 2 factors. Income and expense. Bad idea to ignore either. You have to start somewhere.

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes. Around 40% don't pay any federal taxes of any kind. But they can't spend us into oblivion unless they can convince their godless voters to increase taxes at all times.

---

They actually know, for the most part, that the upper class contributes the most. What they want is additional tax brackets, because making 5 million a year is different from making 5 billion a year, and nobody truly needs 5 billion. And it is a fair point, that someone making even 500 million a year is profiting off of many others, making much less money. Nobody making 50m is doing it with their own 2 hands.

I support a progressive tax system, and not only would I let the tax cuts expire in 2025, I'd also created 3 or 4 new tax brackets at 15m, 50m, 100m, and 250m. Conservatives seem to not understand basic accounting. Revenue needs to exceed spending in order to make a dent in 30 trillion dollars of debt.

---

That's entirely the wrong way of thinking. No one has any right to say how much someone else needs or how much is too much for someone else. It's quite literally none of my business how much money you make or how you use it. The only exceptions is that crimes must be punished & politicians should be punished didn't more if they violate the public trust & abuse their power (bribery, extortion, kickbacks, etc).

This entire discussion demonstrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers Hefner they placed a ban on income taxes in the original constitution. All they do is make it easier for a government to rob the people, makes government richer & more powerful, and thus leads to more corruption & tyranny. Nothing good comes from it.

Anyone who truly wants freedom should prioritize the repeal of the 16th amendment.

---

It is none of your business how much I make, but it sure is the IRS's, and the government's. Of course this is just my opinion, only worth 1/330,000,000, as is yours, but you are entirely wrong. Your logic leads to the conclusion of a flat tax rate, which is absolutely, undeniably, backwards. Elon Musk should not pay the same tax rate as a single mother who has trouble feeding her children.

I am a big proponent of limiting the power of the federal government, and giving power back to the states, but there are certain obligations the federal government has now, that it did not have in the 1770s.

Anyone wanting to go back to that structure is simply ignorant of reality. There is no responsible way to end social security, end medicare/medicaid, or make all 50 states responsible for their own armed forces. And it would be dumb to try. Maybe social security could be phased out, but that is the only large expense that could be.

A progressive federal income tax is really the best solution, and conveniently, what we have. Once you accept that reality, the idea that billionaires should pay the sane rate as measly millionaires becomes silly.

---

So what is Elons fair share?

What % should he pay?

nein51 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes. Around 40% don't pay any federal taxes of any kind. But they can't spend us into oblivion unless they can convince their godless voters to increase taxes at all times.

---

They actually know, for the most part, that the upper class contributes the most. What they want is additional tax brackets, because making 5 million a year is different from making 5 billion a year, and nobody truly needs 5 billion. And it is a fair point, that someone making even 500 million a year is profiting off of many others, making much less money. Nobody making 50m is doing it with their own 2 hands.

I support a progressive tax system, and not only would I let the tax cuts expire in 2025, I'd also created 3 or 4 new tax brackets at 15m, 50m, 100m, and 250m. Conservatives seem to not understand basic accounting. Revenue needs to exceed spending in order to make a dent in 30 trillion dollars of debt.

---

That's entirely the wrong way of thinking. No one has any right to say how much someone else needs or how much is too much for someone else. It's quite literally none of my business how much money you make or how you use it. The only exceptions is that crimes must be punished & politicians should be punished didn't more if they violate the public trust & abuse their power (bribery, extortion, kickbacks, etc).

This entire discussion demonstrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers Hefner they placed a ban on income taxes in the original constitution. All they do is make it easier for a government to rob the people, makes government richer & more powerful, and thus leads to more corruption & tyranny. Nothing good comes from it.

Anyone who truly wants freedom should prioritize the repeal of the 16th amendment.

---

It is none of your business how much I make, but it sure is the IRS's, and the government's. Of course this is just my opinion, only worth 1/330,000,000, as is yours, but you are entirely wrong. Your logic leads to the conclusion of a flat tax rate, which is absolutely, undeniably, backwards. Elon Musk should not pay the same tax rate as a single mother who has trouble feeding her children.

I am a big proponent of limiting the power of the federal government, and giving power back to the states, but there are certain obligations the federal government has now, that it did not have in the 1770s.

Anyone wanting to go back to that structure is simply ignorant of reality. There is no responsible way to end social security, end medicare/medicaid, or make all 50 states responsible for their own armed forces. And it would be dumb to try. Maybe social security could be phased out, but that is the only large expense that could be.

A progressive federal income tax is really the best solution, and conveniently, what we have. Once you accept that reality, the idea that billionaires should pay the sane rate as measly millionaires becomes silly.

---

So what is Elons fair share?

What % should he pay?

---

In my mind, with hardly any thought into it, the 3 new tax brackets would be 39%, 41%, 43%.

nein51 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

jbbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

For years we've heard the left politicians say the rich don't pay their fair share. Now you have Hunter not paying over $1M in taxes and pardoned so he doesn't have to pay. Wouldn't this be an example of the rich not paying their fair share??? How do the lefties on this board, who clearly voted for Biden, explain this????

---

The same way Dumbocrats fail to realize the top 10% earners pay the VAST majority of our federal taxes. Around 40% don't pay any federal taxes of any kind. But they can't spend us into oblivion unless they can convince their godless voters to increase taxes at all times.

---

They actually know, for the most part, that the upper class contributes the most. What they want is additional tax brackets, because making 5 million a year is different from making 5 billion a year, and nobody truly needs 5 billion. And it is a fair point, that someone making even 500 million a year is profiting off of many others, making much less money. Nobody making 50m is doing it with their own 2 hands.

I support a progressive tax system, and not only would I let the tax cuts expire in 2025, I'd also created 3 or 4 new tax brackets at 15m, 50m, 100m, and 250m. Conservatives seem to not understand basic accounting. Revenue needs to exceed spending in order to make a dent in 30 trillion dollars of debt.

---

That's entirely the wrong way of thinking. No one has any right to say how much someone else needs or how much is too much for someone else. It's quite literally none of my business how much money you make or how you use it. The only exceptions is that crimes must be punished & politicians should be punished didn't more if they violate the public trust & abuse their power (bribery, extortion, kickbacks, etc).

This entire discussion demonstrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers Hefner they placed a ban on income taxes in the original constitution. All they do is make it easier for a government to rob the people, makes government richer & more powerful, and thus leads to more corruption & tyranny. Nothing good comes from it.

Anyone who truly wants freedom should prioritize the repeal of the 16th amendment.

---

It is none of your business how much I make, but it sure is the IRS's, and the government's. Of course this is just my opinion, only worth 1/330,000,000, as is yours, but you are entirely wrong. Your logic leads to the conclusion of a flat tax rate, which is absolutely, undeniably, backwards. Elon Musk should not pay the same tax rate as a single mother who has trouble feeding her children.

I am a big proponent of limiting the power of the federal government, and giving power back to the states, but there are certain obligations the federal government has now, that it did not have in the 1770s.

Anyone wanting to go back to that structure is simply ignorant of reality. There is no responsible way to end social security, end medicare/medicaid, or make all 50 states responsible for their own armed forces. And it would be dumb to try. Maybe social security could be phased out, but that is the only large expense that could be.

A progressive federal income tax is really the best solution, and conveniently, what we have. Once you accept that reality, the idea that billionaires should pay the sane rate as measly millionaires becomes silly.

---

So what is Elons fair share?

What % should he pay?

---

In my mind, with hardly any thought into it, the 3 new tax brackets would be 39%, 41%, 43%.

---

And what should someone making the following pay?
Less than $30,000
$30,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$200,000
More than $500,000

---

Same as now. If the cuts expired in 2025, that would change things.

10% of $100,000 is $10,000 leaving $90,000 to live on

10% of $50,000 is $5,000 leaving $45,000 to live on

10% of $100,000,000 is $10,000,000 leaving $90,000,000 to live on


The argument that a flat tax is unfair because of the 3rd dollar figure on each line is interesting, but wrong.

if the tax was totally removed, then the disparity between incomes would still exist for whatever reason it exists (job responsibility level, inherited money or lack of, patents owned, royalties earned, investments made, finding oil on your land by shooting for food, etc.)
Salaries earned are figured and awarded based on what net income will be as well. If I am offered a salary for beetle rolling, and I am a really productive beetle roller, I will be offered a salary that will allow me to live better than most beetle rollers after taxes. If I am a beginner beetle roller, I will likely be offered a salary that is less comfortable than most beetle rollers. if beetle rolling is a big thing, all of us beetle rollers will be doing pretty well. If beetle rolling is becoming obsolete, all of us beetle rollers will be making less and less - as well as the owner and investors of the beetle rolling company.
The thought process that the $5,000 in tax paid by the $50,000 income earner is "more expensive" for them does not take into account that the job that pays that is likely paying a higher wage than if there was no tax on that income.

Also not considered, the person making $100,000,000 per year is not likely to have most of that in liquid form like a bank account. It is likely invested in some job creating enterprise(s) producing jobs and income for others.

A flat tax is also easily predictable, making it far easier for the overall economy and personal budgets to deal with. No need for accountants and lawyers to get involved unless taxes are unpaid or income is disputed.

A flat tax is definitely regressive in that 10% of $10,000 is, at minimum, $1,000 more than that person is paying now and after credits probably well more than $1,000…while 10% of $100,000,000 is far less than that person is paying now.

The big problem is the number of people who pay nothing. If you pay nothing then you should not have the right to vote. It's really, really easy to spend other people's money. Hell we are doing it in this thread.

I have no problem taxing the rich. I have a problem with taxing a guy $11,000,000,000 and then saying he isn't paying his "fair share". The average family in the 20% bracket paid $17,902. He paid the taxes for 614,456 families. If that's not enough what is? I think he paid close to 3% of the ENTIRE TAX SYSTEM. One dude.

I like Elons idea of a consumption tax. Make basics like food and medicine non taxable. That way the rich buying all their fancy things pay their "fair share" and poors buying nothing wont have to pay anything.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

10% of $100,000 is $10,000 leaving $90,000 to live on

10% of $50,000 is $5,000 leaving $45,000 to live on

10% of $100,000,000 is $10,000,000 leaving $90,000,000 to live on


The argument that a flat tax is unfair because of the 3rd dollar figure on each line is interesting, but wrong.

if the tax was totally removed, then the disparity between incomes would still exist for whatever reason it exists (job responsibility level, inherited money or lack of, patents owned, royalties earned, investments made, finding oil on your land by shooting for food, etc.)
Salaries earned are figured and awarded based on what net income will be as well. If I am offered a salary for beetle rolling, and I am a really productive beetle roller, I will be offered a salary that will allow me to live better than most beetle rollers after taxes. If I am a beginner beetle roller, I will likely be offered a salary that is less comfortable than most beetle rollers. if beetle rolling is a big thing, all of us beetle rollers will be doing pretty well. If beetle rolling is becoming obsolete, all of us beetle rollers will be making less and less - as well as the owner and investors of the beetle rolling company.
The thought process that the $5,000 in tax paid by the $50,000 income earner is "more expensive" for them does not take into account that the job that pays that is likely paying a higher wage than if there was no tax on that income.

Also not considered, the person making $100,000,000 per year is not likely to have most of that in liquid form like a bank account. It is likely invested in some job creating enterprise(s) producing jobs and income for others.

A flat tax is also easily predictable, making it far easier for the overall economy and personal budgets to deal with. No need for accountants and lawyers to get involved unless taxes are unpaid or income is disputed.

---

Much of this logic is distressed. Going backwards, any given tax rate is predictable to any given accountant.

A person making a hundred million a year can pay any percentage of that in taxes, and every year has it set aside, so whether it is liquid at any point is irrelevant. To argue that high earners should pay less taxes because it is a financial stress to have 40% liquid at the time they write a check to the IRS is extremely distressed logic.

The large paragraph is hard to decipher for me, but you are equating tax brackets to skill at beetle rolling and merit based pay checks. Yes, people better at their jobs will make more money, all other things being equal. I don't see that as relevant, but maybe I missed the point.

For posterity, here are my proposed tax brackets as they currently stand. Below, are the brackets if the tax cuts currently in effect, were to expire.


$0-$11,000................ 10%
$11,001-$44,725........12%
$44,726-$95,375....... 22%
$95,376-$182,100..... 24%
$182,101-$231,250... 32%
$231,251-$578,125... 35%
$578,126 and up....... 37% (currently the top bracket)

My proposed additions. I got this wrong before.

1.5m-4.999m............. 39%
5m-49.999m.............. 41%
50m-499.999m.......... 43%
500m-4.999bn........... 45%
5bn and up................ 46%

If the tax cuts expired:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%
39.6%

My proposed additions:

1.5m-4.999m............. 42%
5m-49.999m.............. 44%
50m-499.999m.......... 46%
500m-4.999bn........... 48%
5bn and up................ 49%

And to offset this, I would want the reductions in estate tax to become permanent, and to set the corporate tax rate at 25%. It was 35% before, and the tax cut reduced it to 21%.

Credit where it's due. At least your proposal makes some sense. Way better than 99% of what I've seen from people.

nein51 said:

---

Credit where it's due. At least your proposal makes some sense. Way better than 99% of what I've seen from people.

---

I would also work out a deal with Congress, if I were President in 2025, to make these new tax brackets effective for 1 year at a time. In return for the additional revenue and brackets, Congress would have to cut spending by 20% every fiscal year, otherwise the additional tax brackets would automatically expire, until spending was 5% under estimated revenue.

Porteroso said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

10% of $100,000 is $10,000 leaving $90,000 to live on

10% of $50,000 is $5,000 leaving $45,000 to live on

10% of $100,000,000 is $10,000,000 leaving $90,000,000 to live on


The argument that a flat tax is unfair because of the 3rd dollar figure on each line is interesting, but wrong.

if the tax was totally removed, then the disparity between incomes would still exist for whatever reason it exists (job responsibility level, inherited money or lack of, patents owned, royalties earned, investments made, finding oil on your land by shooting for food, etc.)
Salaries earned are figured and awarded based on what net income will be as well. If I am offered a salary for beetle rolling, and I am a really productive beetle roller, I will be offered a salary that will allow me to live better than most beetle rollers after taxes. If I am a beginner beetle roller, I will likely be offered a salary that is less comfortable than most beetle rollers. if beetle rolling is a big thing, all of us beetle rollers will be doing pretty well. If beetle rolling is becoming obsolete, all of us beetle rollers will be making less and less - as well as the owner and investors of the beetle rolling company.
The thought process that the $5,000 in tax paid by the $50,000 income earner is "more expensive" for them does not take into account that the job that pays that is likely paying a higher wage than if there was no tax on that income.

Also not considered, the person making $100,000,000 per year is not likely to have most of that in liquid form like a bank account. It is likely invested in some job creating enterprise(s) producing jobs and income for others.

A flat tax is also easily predictable, making it far easier for the overall economy and personal budgets to deal with. No need for accountants and lawyers to get involved unless taxes are unpaid or income is disputed.

---

Much of this logic is distressed. Going backwards, any given tax rate is predictable to any given accountant.

A person making a hundred million a year can pay any percentage of that in taxes, and every year has it set aside, so whether it is liquid at any point is irrelevant. To argue that high earners should pay less taxes because it is a financial stress to have 40% liquid at the time they write a check to the IRS is extremely distressed logic.

The large paragraph is hard to decipher for me, but you are equating tax brackets to skill at beetle rolling and merit based pay checks. Yes, people better at their jobs will make more money, all other things being equal. I don't see that as relevant, but maybe I missed the point.

For posterity, here are my proposed tax brackets as they currently stand. Below, are the brackets if the tax cuts currently in effect, were to expire.


$0-$11,000................ 10%
$11,001-$44,725........12%
$44,726-$95,375....... 22%
$95,376-$182,100..... 24%
$182,101-$231,250... 32%
$231,251-$578,125... 35%
$578,126 and up....... 37% (currently the top bracket)

My proposed additions. I got this wrong before.

1.5m-4.999m............. 39%
5m-49.999m.............. 41%
50m-499.999m.......... 43%
500m-4.999bn........... 45%
5bn and up................ 46%

If the tax cuts expired:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%
39.6%

My proposed additions:

1.5m-4.999m............. 42%
5m-49.999m.............. 44%
50m-499.999m.......... 46%
500m-4.999bn........... 48%
5bn and up................ 49%

And to offset this, I would want the reductions in estate tax to become permanent, and to set the corporate tax rate at 25%. It was 35% before, and the tax cut reduced it to 21%.

---

Your proposal removes a lot of money from capitalization for more jobs. Low income is much better than no income and dependency upon the state.

It is also presumed that the taxes paid would fund services for the low income earners giving them more value back than the taxes they put in.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Your proposal removes a lot of money from capitalization for more jobs. Low income is much better than no income and dependency upon the state.

---

The national debt reaching a point where our currency becomes devalued will remove a lot of money for jobs. What I have proposed is manageable.

Asking our children to repay 35 trillion is something I consider a non starter, but it does seem exactly what you and the rest of the country are expecting.

nein51 said:

---

A flat tax is definitely regressive in that 10% of $10,000 is, at minimum, $1,000 more than that person is paying now and after credits probably well more than $1,000…while 10% of $100,000,000 is far less than that person is paying now.

The big problem is the number of people who pay nothing. If you pay nothing then you should not have the right to vote. It's really, really easy to spend other people's money. Hell we are doing it in this thread.

I have no problem taxing the rich. I have a problem with taxing a guy $11,000,000,000 and then saying he isn't paying his "fair share". The average family in the 20% bracket paid $17,902. He paid the taxes for 614,456 families. If that's not enough what is? I think he paid close to 3% of the ENTIRE TAX SYSTEM. One dude.

---

Calling a flat tax regressive is not taking into account the benefits gained by the low income tax payer thtough the services provided by those taxes.

If a person actually made only $10,000 in income for a year as a single, that person would be getting aid from the taxes paid for social services (beyond SS and medicare.) Welfare programs would kick in.

I actually am not opposed to a low income cut off, except that politicians will use it as a political football and a new way to buy votes.