Go back
Increased taxes on high income

Increased taxes on high income

Debates

moon1969

Houston, Texas

Joined
28 Sep 10
Moves
14347
Clock
17 Oct 13
2 edits

Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.

Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
17 Oct 13

It would be good for the US economy, but I don't see a realistic political scenario where a tax hike on top incomes is likely. Perhaps after the 2014 midterms, if the GOP is punished in elections for the shutdown/debt ceiling debacle. But history shows that the voter's memory is abysmally poor.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by moon1969
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.

Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
the companies that make real money don't pay tax, apple, google etc, they hide the money offshore, I suspect the same will be true of individuals.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Hopefully as we borrow more and more and more to pay for new toys that we call "entitlements", it is time to broaden the tax base and see that everyone pays for things that we used to be able to get by without.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
17 Oct 13
1 edit

Originally posted by moon1969
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.

Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
That presumes that the TEA party (4 Senators, and about 80 Reps) are blamed for the whole fiasco, which most serious Americans blame on a lack of leadership from the President, who has much greater power than all the TEA party reps together.

Immigration reform is unpopular on both sides of the isle, and background checks are nearly universal already. How are you going to get labor to go along with amnesty for already illegals, and the fact that millions more will be invited by the amnesty provisions?

How will the background checks ever be totally "universal" without impairing the ability of everyday law abiding Americans to sell their property? And will it ever have any effect on underground, black market sales of weapons (Like the BATF/Justice Department Fast and Furious), or weapons smuggled in, which like drugs will fill the demand if legal weapons are made too hard to get or sell?

Is it probable that this progressive idea will be, like most, jumping out of the frying pan into the fire? Will it make guns more numerous as well as more expensive, and make dealing in them very profitable?

The only good thing I see coming from this is the proposal to get moving on a real budget proposal.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by quackquack
Hopefully as we borrow more and more and more to pay for new toys that we call "entitlements", it is time to broaden the tax base and see that everyone pays for things that we used to be able to get by without.
As has been already mentioned the uberwealthy have larger reserves, but there are so few of them, and they also have the mobility to hide and shelter their wealth.

The great untapped resource is the lower income, and middle class who in many cases don't pay any income taxes. The massive underground economy tends to make them look a lot worse off than they are. A lot of low wage, and surprisingly high wage workers are under the table.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It would be good for the US economy, but I don't see a realistic political scenario where a tax hike on top incomes is likely. Perhaps after the 2014 midterms, if the GOP is punished in elections for the shutdown/debt ceiling debacle. But history shows that the voter's memory is abysmally poor.
Either their memory is poor, or in some cases they remember differently than the establishment tries to teach them.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
17 Oct 13

Originally posted by normbenign
As has been already mentioned the uberwealthy have larger reserves, but there are so few of them, and they also have the mobility to hide and shelter their wealth.

The great untapped resource is the lower income, and middle class who in many cases don't pay any income taxes. The massive underground economy tends to make them look a lot worse off than they are. A lot of low wage, and surprisingly high wage workers are under the table.
That the lower income brackets don't pay much tax is, of course, the basis of the sensible rational system of progressive taxation.

The solution to the first problem is to eliminate the loopholes that allow the uberwealthy to hide and shelter their wealth.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
17 Oct 13

Originally posted by normbenign
Either their memory is poor, or in some cases they remember differently than the establishment tries to teach them.
The real establishment consists of wealthy corporate interests, who sometimes (especially in America) co-opt politicians but in general have done their best simply to render them powerless. The Tea Party is a classic case of the corporate establishment co-opting the poor and lower middle classes too, getting them to vote and campaign against their own economic interests. An astroturf movement, I think they call it.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
17 Oct 13

Originally posted by Teinosuke
That the lower income brackets don't pay much tax is, of course, the basis of the sensible rational system of progressive taxation.

The solution to the first problem is to eliminate the loopholes that allow the uberwealthy to hide and shelter their wealth.
Progressive taxation is neither sensible, nor rational. It is the basis of political division of people into economic groups, each disliking the other irrationally.

Flat taxation is fair, uncomplicated, and not political. It still results in significantly higher taxes being paid by the wealthy, but lacks the coercive and pejorative attacks on the successful that marks the progressive system.

The progressive system promotes hypocrisy, double talk, antagonism between groups, even hatred among families where some are more successful than others.

I could agree to the elimination of loopholes, but it should be across the board, so that nobody can hide income, or the best way to eliminate income as the basis for taxation and move to consumption.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
17 Oct 13

Originally posted by normbenign
Progressive taxation is neither sensible, nor rational. It is the basis of political division of people into economic groups, each disliking the other irrationally.

Flat taxation is fair, uncomplicated, and not political. It still results in significantly higher taxes being paid by the wealthy, but lacks the coercive and pejorative attacks on the suc ...[text shortened]... e income, or the best way to eliminate income as the basis for taxation and move to consumption.
The government likes loopholes as it is a method to sell/ exchange benefits to favored group. We should all be very suspect of loopholes because they are essentially governmental side deals when all should be treated the same.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by quackquack
The government likes loopholes as it is a method to sell/ exchange benefits to favored group. We should all be very suspect of loopholes because they are essentially governmental side deals when all should be treated the same.
Precisely. I have a copy of the tax code from almost 30 years ago, which is as thick as the Phone book printed on tissue thin paper, 17,000 pages plus.

It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.

I would prefer a consumption tax, with only residential home and food being excluded. The amount of record keeping, compliance and enforcement saved would be astounding, all of which would promote business activity, and economic growth.

Instead, we move in the opposite direction, with the IRS growing to enforce the ACA.

JS357

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
Precisely. I have a copy of the tax code from almost 30 years ago, which is as thick as the Phone book printed on tissue thin paper, 17,000 pages plus.

It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.

I would prefer ...[text shortened]... growth.

Instead, we move in the opposite direction, with the IRS growing to enforce the ACA.
Look at the sales tax exemption list of any state that has a sales tax and you will see a patchwork of exemptions for medical goods, unprepared food, textbooks, the Bible, clothing and other items during "tax holidays" etc. etc. Example:

http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/0A984AD9-6146-42E9-A0DD-A58CD9E653CC/0/Section12_36_2120.pdf

The same political pandering is already in place in state sales and use taxes, and would be at the federal level.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
It is all political, and pandering to varieties of constituencies. Fair would be everyone treated equally, no incentives, no rebates, no tax credits, no loopholes, no multiple rates.

I would prefer a consumption tax, with only residential home and food being excluded. The amount of record keeping, compliance and enforcement saved would be astounding, all of which would promote business activity, and economic growth.
I find it difficult to imagine any basis for taxation which is "not political". A flat tax is premised on the ideological assumption that the rich deserve their wealth (ie, it assumes that people get, in financial terms, what they deserve). I fail to see how this assumption is a non-political one.

The reasons for your proposal for the exclusion of residential home and food from your consumption tax are not self-evident. If these things are considered essential, then why not exclude clothes from the tax too? One can't go about naked. What about luxury foods such as caviare? They're clearly not essentials...

moon1969

Houston, Texas

Joined
28 Sep 10
Moves
14347
Clock
17 Oct 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
That presumes that the TEA party (4 Senators, and about 80 Reps) are blamed for the whole fiasco, which most serious Americans blame on a lack of leadership from the President, who has much greater power than all the TEA party reps together.

Immigration reform is unpopular on both sides of the isle, and background checks are nearly universal already. ...[text shortened]... only good thing I see coming from this is the proposal to get moving on a real budget proposal.
Immigration reform has already passed the Senate. Hopefully, the bill will go to the House floor where the democrats and rational Republicans will combine to give a majority to pass the bill. Again, let's cross our fingers.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.