Medicaid

[meister]

And have you thought of the consequences of that? You think the rich isn't smart enough to move even more business off shore into countries like China where government is pro-business? Now you got even more people out of a job to feed, and we'll be borrowing even more money from the chinese.

They're not going to move, most of them anyway. Our taxes are laughably low at the federal level on the super-wealthy. I mean look at the inheritance tax, it's a joke. Steinbrenner's billions got taxed federally at zero percent. Don't you think the trickle-down idea that lower taxes on the rich mean increased productivity has been proven false after the past three decades? How much more empirical evidence do you need?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xiphoid2010]

They're not going to move, most of them anyway. Our taxes are laughably low at the federal level on the super-wealthy. I mean look at the inheritance tax, it's a joke. Steinbrenner's billions got taxed federally at zero percent. Don't you think the trickle-down idea that lower taxes on the rich mean increased productivity has been proven false after the past three decades? How much more empirical evidence do you need?

Just looking at how much off-shoring is already occurring is enough evidence. By increasing taxes further, there will be an inflection point where the increased tax rate does not generate more taxes but rather decreases total tax collected and create more unemployment. What that rate is beyond my understanding, and for economist to work it out.

But your solution is far too simplistic and most likely won't work. I don't buy into the trickle down affect, but I don't buy raising taxes to the max as the solution either. The most sensible plan is to attack the problem from both the tax and expenditure directions.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Let's look the budget gap in a few different ways.

Budget deficit $1.6 trillion. Population of US ~300 million.

That's $5333 extra taxes needed for every man woman elderly and babies.

Given that tax aren't collectable from babies, many elderly, and welfare recipients, what each tax payer will pony up extra is really much higher, most likely >$10,000 more per tax payer.

Is it really possible to collect that much tax?

Here is a break down on where we collect the current $2.16 trillion in taxes.

To cover the $1.6 trillion in gap by taxes, we would have to increase tax rate by 76% across the board. Or income tax by 170%, or social security taxes by 185%.

If we do that, there will certainly be companies and people leaving the country, so the real tax rate we have to collect will still not be enough.

C'mon people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that simply trying to tax the problem away isn't going to solve the problem. Taxes is only a part of the solution, but not all of it.

 

[type b pharmD]

And have you thought of the consequences of that? You think the rich isn't smart enough to move even more business off shore into countries like China where government is pro-business? Now you got even more people out of a job to feed, and we'll be borrowing even more money from the chinese.

The rich needs to be taxed, but only to the point that maximizes benefit of the economy. There I agree that we need to repeal some of the tax cuts, but higher taxes and benefit cuts must go hand in hand. We are all in this crisis together, and nobody is going to come out without growing some balls and taking a hit.

We didnt get ourselves into this, the plutocrats did. They should have to bear the majority of the costs. You think all of us in the middle class and below should take a hit to subsidize more bad behavior? I dont. I agree with meister. Repeal all tax cuts on the wealthy is a start. Doubling the highest rates is another start.

 

[awval999]

We didnt get ourselves into this, the plutocrats did. They should have to bear the majority of the costs. You think all of us in the middle class and below should take a hit to subsidize more bad behavior? I dont. I agree with meister. Repeal all tax cuts on the wealthy is a start. Doubling the highest rates is another start.

Doubling the tax rates? Really? So you are okay with a federal marginal tax bracket of 70%? Once they come for the ones with income >250K they will come for you next.

 

[xiphoid2010]

We didnt get ourselves into this, the plutocrats did. They should have to bear the majority of the costs. You think all of us in the middle class and below should take a hit to subsidize more bad behavior? I dont. I agree with meister. Repeal all tax cuts on the wealthy is a start. Doubling the highest rates is another start.

As I already stated, I fervently support repealing the tax cuts, we clearly can't afford it. But I think you guys are shouting slogans without understanding the economics when talking doubling taxes.

I don't understand just how much impact that is or even if twisting the balls of the few wealthy plutocrats it will make much of a dent to the $1.6 trillion gap. And that's why I suggest we reserve that for the economists.

 

[type b pharmD]

Doubling the tax rates? Really? So you are okay with a federal marginal tax bracket of 70%? Once they come for the ones with income >250K they will come for you next.

Perhaps I did not elaborate enough. Not doubling of the rate as it exists now (>375k),. I just meant, perhaps a 70% tax on marginal income over 5 million (or some other high number, I dont know enough to choose in particular, but something more like what europe has).. Most of the other major western nations have high marginal tax rates on the super-rich and if you take a close look you'll find a lot of europe is in better shape than the US, budget wise. And I dont believe there's a slippery slope that exists between people making >5 million and people making >250k. There's a big difference between the economic classes of these people, and, more importantly, in their voting numbers.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Perhaps I did not elaborate enough. Not doubling of the rate as it exists now (>375k),. I just meant, perhaps a 70% tax on marginal income over 5 million. And I dont believe there's a slippery slope that exists between people making >5 million and people making >250k. There's a big difference between the economic classes of these people, and, more importantly, in their voting numbers.

With a 70% tax, you think they are not smart enough to live across the border? Congrats, you just solved Canada's budget problem.

 

[type b pharmD]

With a 70% tax, you think they are not smart enough to live across the border? Congrats, you just solved the Canada's budget problem.

If they're making their money in the US, which has fostered such high income earning jobs with its free market system, they will still have to pay tax in the US, regardless of what they call themselves. Of course I guess they could just transfer into another millionare job in the next town over across the border.

I'm not concerned with a specific rate (like i said I cant say if 70% is a magic number or some other number), im just saying, the US spends an enormous amount of money in the form of corruption losses and corporate subsidies to allow innovation and capitalism to occur here. If someone is getting rich here, using our system, they should be paying a fair share to support this system -- at the moment, the richest people in the US, who benefited the most from our capitalism economy, are not paying enough to support the losses that occur (ie the bankers and government-corporate collusions are what crashed the economy -- should poor and middle class people have to pay for this? the bankers and regulators considered all of their largesse simply the cost of doing business in a free market economy, well now that the bill has arrived, who should pay?

I would argue that the financial crash and associated downturn in the economy is a symptom of capitalism related losses , that is.. the system itself necessarily ended up with this outcome (corruption and overextending of greed) due to its natural state in capitalism of heady profit seeking abandon. Im not saying capitalism is right or wrong, just that there are clearly large costs associated with letting free market forces run the government and the economy. When the party is over, are we to expect the people who benefitted the most from this scheme to just walk out and shoulder "society" with the bill? It doesnt make sense to me that someone can abuse an economy to take money out of it and then have the poor and middle class (ie US, and other wage earners) foot the bill. Yeah this was acceptable in the last milennium, but we are not in the times of the lords and the serfs any longer

 

[R2pharmD2]

As I already stated, I fervently support repealing the tax cuts, we clearly can't afford it. But I think you guys are shouting slogans without understanding the economics when talking doubling taxes.

I don't understand just how much impact that is or even if twisting the balls of the few wealthy plutocrats it will make much of a dent to the $1.6 trillion gap. And that's why I suggest we reserve that for the economists.

Even as someone who generally supports spending for programs like medicaid, I agree with the point that it's going to take a combination of tax increases and major spending cuts to solve our budget problems. We're past the point where a single change will solve the issue, so we really do have to look at everything. We can certainly debate the specifics of what gets cut, but there's no way around the fact that cuts will have to be made, and not just from the smallest parts of the budget.

 

[Ty1219]

We had a test on this last year. You took this test. This was a question on the test. The answer was like 13,600 being the threshold for eligibility. That's half the number you quoted. 7200 for an individual with an additional 4000 for every dependent living in house. I'm sure those numbers have changed a little bit in the past year, but it didn't double.

Both of you go to Mercer? I graduated there in 2008, so I'm just wondering how you like it. I'm sure many of the professors have changed. Heck, in half a year, we had 8 profs leave (and they were the few remaining good ones).

To give my two-cents on this tax debate. I hate how professionals, like pharmacists, are viewed as "wealthy." We graduate with $150K-$200K in loan debt! The current government wants to [again] raise taxes on the "wealthy," which is an income of $200,000 or more. This was in the President's budget proposal. I'm not sure if that's for a family or individual, but still, it's the concept. They don't take into account the loans we have to repay. Maybe they don't care. We have seen govenment officials can easily get away without paying taxes, but we all know we surely could not be so lucky. If we are being taxed to support those who aren't working, how are we supposed to pay off these loans and start a family in relative security? Taxing me at a higher rate is not rewarding my ambition for getting an education and furthering it with grad school. Furthermore, by not taxing the lower class at all, they will never have an incentive to try to work. They will always depend on the government for money, food, and shelter, which is coming from people who work hard for their money and success. We are not out of the recession, so we do not need to raise taxes on those who provide jobs. How about a flat tax on those who do not work, just so they can understand that this money is coming from other people working hard. Even if the tax is small, they need to have something taken away because unfortunately, some people do take advantage of this system. Some wealthy people inherit their money, but so many of them work hard to establish businesses which employ others. This needs to be recognized, rather than just looked at as incomes to tax. How about the government look at the salaries/benefits of all the government workers who make twice as much as those in the private sector. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to go. We will not have the professionals we need, and the people that aren't used to having money won't know what to do with it and will squander it.

As far as the tax rebates, that is the money we earned, and it belongs to us. I don't spend it on clothes or movies. It goes towards loans. If you want to give more, give more to the government. Plenty of wealthy people give to charities, and we don't want this to stop.

 

[xiphoid2010]

If they're making their money in the US, which has fostered such high income earning jobs with its free market system, they will still have to pay tax in the US, regardless of what they call themselves. Of course I guess they could just transfer into another millionare job in the next town over across the border.

Much of the uber rich does not work or have income you and I think of. They make money off assets and investments. So say are a Canadian live in Canada and invest in the US stock market, do you pay US tax or Canadian tax on the money you make? I think it's the latter.

 

[xiphoid2010]

As far as the tax rebates, that is the money we earned, and it belongs to us. I don't spend it on clothes or movies. It goes towards loans. If you want to give more, give more to the government. Plenty of wealthy people give to charities, and we don't want this to stop.

I understand where are you coming from. But there is no denying that taxes can't stay the way it is, as just welfare programs can't be afforded at the current level.

We all gonna have to make sacrifices if this nation is to survive. It must be done. Because the debt hole is getting bigger and bigger. It's already painful today, but if we waste more time talking instead of doing, it's going to be excruciating tomorrow.

 

[sleazye]

There would be more taxes on activities like white water rafting, bungie jumping, etc. that many people do. Let's be honest, the people who do this are typically people with a little more money to spend/budgeting money better for vacation. A raise in the prices isn't going to affect the normal people.

Smoking, increase taxes. I would say raise the price so the government dissuades smoking even more (social demand is less than market demand, causing a drop in purchasing cigarettes.) One could argue to charge more for smoking-related medical services but then second-hand smoking at home, workplace (bars) and etc. would contribute making certain factors harder to account for. As for drinking...liver toxicity, higher fines for drinking in public, etc.

Obesity, charge as the trend increases and lower as the trend decreases.

Same way they tax them now. At the point of sale. Cigarettes would be like $10 a pack...but, really, that's probably about how much they cost the system. A Snickers bar would be $3. Factor in a lifetime of metformin and test strips...hell, that might be letting them off easy.

Imagine if people could actually visualize how much money it costs to be obese or smoke.

Only rich people will be fat again. It would be amazing.

Interesting idea but remember that besides the intended effects of increased tax income for the government and "punishing" the consumers of those particular goods (through the higher cost), it also punishes producers of those goods.

If snickers bars were $5 or white water rafting were $1000/trip, don't you think consumers would just say, "f that!" and spend their money elsewhere? Who is gonna explain the fairness of your plan to the snickers factory worker who loses their job or the white water rafting company when they go out of business?

 

[confettiflyer]

As a student who works, I've had taxes taken out of my check every year, and then every year, I got pretty much a complete refund. Everyone jokes that their tax refund is like a fun bonus.

Rather than discuss cutting benefits to many people who genuinely need them, why not stop refunding tax funds to people who don't really need them? Honestly, how many of us have used that refund to buy frivolous crap? $1,000 per person (getting a complete refund) going back into the pot might make a big difference, and it's money you already consider "lost" to taxes during the year anyway.

sounds like you need to adjust your withholding if you expect to get it all back because of your 1098-T

 

[sleazye]

I'm gonna eclipse the $300k mark, gonna feel pretty good.

Sure, I'll acknowledge it. The solution is the cut the military in half and tax the **** out of the rich. Income above $1 million taxed at 60% and a 2% tax per year on all bank accounts with more than $100k in assets. Oh and also capital gains at 50% after the first few thousand in income. The rich have reaped all the benefits of the last 30 years of neoliberal Reaganism, it's time they paid for it.

They're not going to move, most of them anyway. Our taxes are laughably low at the federal level on the super-wealthy. I mean look at the inheritance tax, it's a joke. Steinbrenner's billions got taxed federally at zero percent. Don't you think the trickle-down idea that lower taxes on the rich mean increased productivity has been proven false after the past three decades? How much more empirical evidence do you need?

Prepare for the GDP to go way down and either domestic workers to be laid off or companies to move off shore. What incentive does any entrepreneur have to increase production when the majority of their compensation for that would go to the government? Government income actually tends to decrease when you push the Laffer curve that far to the right.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

Interesting idea but remember that besides the intended effects of increased tax income for the government and "punishing" the consumers of those particular goods (through the higher cost), it also punishes producers of those goods.

If snickers bars were $5 or white water rafting were $1000/trip, don't you think consumers would just say, "f that!" and spend their money elsewhere? Who is gonna explain the fairness of your plan to the snickers factory worker who loses their job or the white water rafting company when they go out of business?

That's an extreme outlook, however. One can easily say charging 5-10 for a snicker is going to cause an uproar.

However, going from 1.00 to 1.25 or 1.50 is a 25-50% markup (compared to a 500-1000% markup). Markups are just one piece of the puzzle, however. It's also the relative cost for the consumer. 50% is a lot for a company to make on a product but an extra 50 cents for the consumer isn't as big of a deal. White water rafting, depending on where you go, is like 100 bucks (some are a lot more and some are less). With 100 bucks, if you go to say, 120 bucks, it's not going to kill the market. If it was a 20 dollar increase all around, then there is no market shift for competitors for white water rafting. Most people who are into that kind of thing will not lose 20 bucks.

Cigarettes...well, we've seen time and time again that raising prices isn't going to make people really quit. Some do, which is AWESOME. But for others, they keep on paying.

I personally feel that pharmaceutical companies, gas and oil companies, PBMs, car manufacturers, insurance companies, etc. that have a strong grip on finances (relatively speaking) should be taxed a little bit more or have their role in the country re-evaluated.

For example, insurance for auto is MANDATED in all 50 states. You HAVE to have it to drive. The government is providing business to a company that is privately owned by telling consumers they have to purchase their product or they cannot drive their car that they purchased from the auto manufacturers. Therefore, because the government has mandated you use this company, the company should provide a larger quantity of money to the government in taxes and fees because the companies are doing a lot better than if they provided an optional coverage.

Besides, it's not like the insurance companies have as much invested to lose as other places. They sell an intangible product that spreads losses over millions of people. If people have claims and whatnot, the money everyone in the state pays is what actually pays an individual's claims; if the money going out reaches a certain threshold then the rates are raised over certain areas. If the money paid out is lower than a threshold (and money stays in the pot) then the company keeps it. In the meantime, while this money is being held interest and investments are being made for more money. Insurance companies are basically like large banks that don't give your money back to you. (Simplified statement, yes, but I'm an insurance agent and you'll see how the money comes rolling in sometimes.)

Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do the same thing; if I recall, isn't there a law that says you have to provide insurance for employees who are full-time? Schools require insurance as well. Don't both the companies lobby to have certain laws keep them exempt, such as monopoly laws? Or am I thinking of another industry? If I am, please correct me. If the government is willing to provide these exemptions and special roles in society, more money should be paid out.

 

[sleazye]

If they're making their money in the US, which has fostered such high income earning jobs with its free market system, they will still have to pay tax in the US, regardless of what they call themselves. Of course I guess they could just transfer into another millionare job in the next town over across the border.

I'm not concerned with a specific rate (like i said I cant say if 70% is a magic number or some other number), im just saying, the US spends an enormous amount of money in the form of corruption losses and corporate subsidies to allow innovation and capitalism to occur here. If someone is getting rich here, using our system, they should be paying a fair share to support this system -- at the moment, the richest people in the US, who benefited the most from our capitalism economy, are not paying enough to support the losses that occur (ie the bankers and government-corporate collusions are what crashed the economy -- should poor and middle class people have to pay for this? the bankers and regulators considered all of their largesse simply the cost of doing business in a free market economy, well now that the bill has arrived, who should pay?

I would argue that the financial crash and associated downturn in the economy is a symptom of capitalism related losses , that is.. the system itself necessarily ended up with this outcome (corruption and overextending of greed) due to its natural state in capitalism of heady profit seeking abandon. Im not saying capitalism is right or wrong, just that there are clearly large costs associated with letting free market forces run the government and the economy. When the party is over, are we to expect the people who benefitted the most from this scheme to just walk out and shoulder "society" with the bill? It doesnt make sense to me that someone can abuse an economy to take money out of it and then have the poor and middle class (ie US, and other wage earners) foot the bill. Yeah this was acceptable in the last milennium, but we are not in the times of the lords and the serfs any longer

Possibly, but I think a large part of it is the reliance and expectation of taxpayer funded government bailouts. Businesses and industries take big risks when they know they won't have to take responsibility for the consequences of those risks should they turn out poorly.

 

[sleazye]

That's an extreme outlook, however. One can easily say charging 5-10 for a snicker is going to cause an uproar.

However, going from 1.00 to 1.25 or 1.50 is a 25-50% markup (compared to a 500-1000% markup). Markups are just one piece of the puzzle, however. It's also the relative cost for the consumer. 50% is a lot for a company to make on a product but an extra 50 cents for the consumer isn't as big of a deal. White water rafting, depending on where you go, is like 100 bucks (some are a lot more and some are less). With 100 bucks, if you go to say, 120 bucks, it's not going to kill the market. If it was a 20 dollar increase all around, then there is no market shift for competitors for white water rafting. Most people who are into that kind of thing will not lose 20 bucks.

Cigarettes...well, we've seen time and time again that raising prices isn't going to make people really quit. Some do, which is AWESOME. But for others, they keep on paying.

I personally feel that pharmaceutical companies, gas and oil companies, PBMs, car manufacturers, insurance companies, etc. that have a strong grip on finances (relatively speaking) should be taxed a little bit more or have their role in the country re-evaluated.

For example, insurance for auto is MANDATED in all 50 states. You HAVE to have it to drive. The government is providing business to a company that is privately owned by telling consumers they have to purchase their product or they cannot drive their car that they purchased from the auto manufacturers. Therefore, because the government has mandated you use this company, the company should provide a larger quantity of money to the government in taxes and fees because the companies are doing a lot better than if they provided an optional coverage.

Besides, it's not like the insurance companies have as much invested to lose as other places. They sell an intangible product that spreads losses over millions of people. If people have claims and whatnot, the money everyone in the state pays is what actually pays an individual's claims; if the money going out reaches a certain threshold then the rates are raised over certain areas. If the money paid out is lower than a threshold (and money stays in the pot) then the company keeps it. In the meantime, while this money is being held interest and investments are being made for more money. Insurance companies are basically like large banks that don't give your money back to you. (Simplified statement, yes, but I'm an insurance agent and you'll see how the money comes rolling in sometimes.)

Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do the same thing; if I recall, isn't there a law that says you have to provide insurance for employees who are full-time? Schools require insurance as well. Don't both the companies lobby to have certain laws keep them exempt, such as monopoly laws? Or am I thinking of another industry? If I am, please correct me. If the government is willing to provide these exemptions and special roles in society, more money should be paid out.

However arbitrary prices of anything seems, whether it is a candy bar or a whitewater rafting trip, they are set by what a consumer is willing to pay. An extreme increase in price would get extreme consequences, a less extreme increase would yield less extreme consequences, but they would be there nonetheless. I can guarantee that a 20 cent tax on a Snickers or any other candy bar would result in less candy bars sold. People would likely buy skittles instead or some other candy. Also remember that that 20 cents is money that would likely have been spent elsewhere such as at the movies or what have you. Putting money into government from the private sector rarely produces optimal results.

 

[Ty1219]

I understand where are you coming from. But there is no denying that taxes can't stay the way it is, as just welfare programs can't be afforded at the current level.

We all gonna have to make sacrifices if this nation is to survive. It must be done. Because the debt hole is getting bigger and bigger. It's already painful today, but if we waste more time talking instead of doing, it's going to be excruciating tomorrow.

Believe me, I want something to be done YESTERDAY. I'm tired of the talking and doing nothing. Unfortunately, we can't do much. NC has an income tax, so I have about 40% taken out of my paycheck as it is. Now, tell me that's fair!

Washington definitely needs to cut spending, but they don't seem to know how to-at least some of them. It is so frustrating to sit on the sidelines, feeling helpless. You can't tax one area too much, in fear of putting them out of business and having thousands of people lose their jobs. But if you were to raise prices on cigarettes, snickers bars, alcohol, whitewater rafting, people would still buy those things so they wouldnt close altogether. You just have to do a lot of little things. This won't be fixed overnight, but spending cuts are essential. I don't know how essential all these "investments" are that are proposed. Should we not get the nation in better shape before we spend billions and trillions more? Unemployment is still incredibly high! For now, I'm just incredibly frustrated with the government.

Also, I understand you need to tax citizens, but there are other issues draining the pot. Those in the country illegally get millions and millions of dollars they are not entitled to. I don't have a problem, I guess with the "uber rich" being taxed at a higher rate than others if they are not directly providing jobs. But, we are talking $5 million and more. It's just wrong to take half the income away from a family making $250,000. Like I said, I already have 40% taken out of my paycheck because of state income tax.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

However arbitrary prices of anything seems, whether it is a candy bar or a whitewater rafting trip, they are set by what a consumer is willing to pay. An extreme increase in price would get extreme consequences, a less extreme increase would yield less extreme consequences, but they would be there nonetheless. I can guarantee that a 20 cent tax on a Snickers or any other candy bar would result in less candy bars sold. People would likely buy skittles instead or some other candy. Also remember that that 20 cents is money that would likely have been spent elsewhere such as at the movies or what have you. Putting money into government from the private sector rarely produces optimal results.

I understand that. Part of the issue is that a precedent was already set with cigarettes. There are taxes on them because they are something that affects the health of people negatively and if they want to obtain them then they have to pay. The same would go with a candy bar, mcdonalds, etc.

And while the 20 cents may decrease demand in candy bars (which is possible since some candy bars that used to be .99 are now 1.29 in some places) the whole point is to either recoup the money the people would have on healthcare and other programs; if they eat less fastfood, candy bars, etc. then the overall cost on the economy would theoretically be less than the products lost because of a 20-30 cent raise. A person eating 3-4x 99 cent cheeseburgers is going to cost more than 5 dollars in healthcare later down the line.

I'm not saying to raise prices for everything. But people already pay variable amounts of money on coke; I can go to wal-mart and buy a 2-liter for 99 cents while I go to harris teeter or lowes and pay the 1.29 for the same 2-liter. People aren't going to go crazy over that price because they already pay differing amounts on the same product in different stores (that all will be visited by the same average person.) It can easily be factored in as part of inflation; if people want them then they will buy them. People still buy gas, cigarettes, insulin, and etc. despite changes in price. I'm just saying to raise taxes on things that negatively affect people more and have very little benefits that are concurrently strongly outweighed by the costs.

 

[sleazye]

Believe me, I want something to be done YESTERDAY. I'm tired of the talking and doing nothing. Unfortunately, we can't do much. NC has an income tax, so I have about 40% taken out of my paycheck as it is. Now, tell me that's fair!

Washington definitely needs to cut spending, but they don't seem to know how to-at least some of them. It is so frustrating to sit on the sidelines, feeling helpless. You can't tax one area too much, in fear of putting them out of business and having thousands of people lose their jobs. But if you were to raise prices on cigarettes, snickers bars, alcohol, whitewater rafting, people would still buy those things so they wouldnt close altogether. You just have to do a lot of little things. This won't be fixed overnight, but spending cuts are essential. I don't know how essential all these "investments" are that are proposed. Should we not get the nation in better shape before we spend billions and trillions more? Unemployment is still incredibly high! For now, I'm just incredibly frustrated with the government.

Also, I understand you need to tax citizens, but there are other issues draining the pot. Those in the country illegally get millions and millions of dollars they are not entitled to. I don't have a problem, I guess with the "uber rich" being taxed at a higher rate than others if they are not directly providing jobs. But, we are talking $5 million and more. It's just wrong to take half the income away from a family making $250,000. Like I said, I already have 40% taken out of my paycheck because of state income tax.

I can't speak for you, but my guess is that if you had at least some of that 40% you would spend some and invest the rest in the economy, correct? This is the rationale for tax breaks to stimulate the economy, though I feel with the fiscal mess we're in at the moment, no amount of tax breaks will stimulate anything without reigning in spending.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

There are plenty of other things that can be done to increase revenue as well, IMO, besides increasing/re-evaluating taxes on wealthy income.

Legalize illegal aliens or make the process easier. If they (and I mean *some*) are going to get government benefits and/or work jobs in America, make them citizens so we can tax them.

There is always the controversial legalization of pot throughout the country and make it a CII.

Increase measures to reduce medicare, medicaid, insurance, and other forms of fraud. tons of money go out to fraudulent claims.

Raise taxes on luxury items; I mean luxury as in high priced items that can be easily substituted for lower priced goods such as cars.

There are several more but obviously having more people to tax, providing a now-regulated substance that generates tax money, and lowering the amount of money paid out on things that don't deserve to be seem like good ways to help pay for the budget.

IMO I think fraud and legalizing the aliens are the 2 biggest to start with. That takes care of several problems all in one and would make society run more efficiently, overall.

 

[sleazye]

I understand that. Part of the issue is that a precedent was already set with cigarettes. There are taxes on them because they are something that affects the health of people negatively and if they want to obtain them then they have to pay. The same would go with a candy bar, mcdonalds, etc.

And while the 20 cents may decrease demand in candy bars (which is possible since some candy bars that used to be .99 are now 1.29 in some places) the whole point is to either recoup the money the people would have on healthcare and other programs; if they eat less fastfood, candy bars, etc. then the overall cost on the economy would theoretically be less than the products lost because of a 20-30 cent raise. A person eating 3-4x 99 cent cheeseburgers is going to cost more than 5 dollars in healthcare later down the line.

I'm not saying to raise prices for everything. But people already pay variable amounts of money on coke; I can go to wal-mart and buy a 2-liter for 99 cents while I go to harris teeter or lowes and pay the 1.29 for the same 2-liter. People aren't going to go crazy over that price because they already pay differing amounts on the same product in different stores (that all will be visited by the same average person.) It can easily be factored in as part of inflation; if people want them then they will buy them. People still buy gas, cigarettes, insulin, and etc. despite changes in price. I'm just saying to raise taxes on things that negatively affect people more and have very little benefits that are concurrently strongly outweighed by the costs.

Cigarettes are a little different because (although I have no numbers to back this up) the majority of consumers that buy them are addicted. Tobacco is the only thing that can cure a craving. Candy bars don't involve this element, despite whatever evidence you may find about pseudoaddiction to junk food, etc.

I understand about the healthcare savings, but you have to acknowledge that it will come at the cost of another area of the economy.

 

[sleazye]

There are plenty of other things that can be done to increase revenue as well, IMO, besides increasing/re-evaluating taxes on wealthy income.

Legalize illegal aliens or make the process easier. If they (and I mean *some*) are going to get government benefits and/or work jobs in America, make them citizens so we can tax them.

There is always the controversial legalization of pot throughout the country and make it a CII.

Increase measures to reduce medicare, medicaid, insurance, and other forms of fraud. tons of money go out to fraudulent claims.

Raise taxes on luxury items; I mean luxury as in high priced items that can be easily substituted for lower priced goods such as cars.

There are several more but obviously having more people to tax, providing a now-regulated substance that generates tax money, and lowering the amount of money paid out on things that don't deserve to be seem like good ways to help pay for the budget.

IMO I think fraud and legalizing the aliens are the 2 biggest to start with. That takes care of several problems all in one and would make society run more efficiently, overall.

I used to believe that we should just grant amnesty to all immigrants for the same reason. However, this legally entitles them to all the benefits of a citizen (duh), including medicaid, etc. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the estimated increased cost strain on these services was projected to double. Now before somebody screams 'racist' at me, you have to admit that the majority (not all) would be low income workers who, thanks to progressive tax structure, would not pay much income tax. Basically, they would stand to gain a LOT financially without paying much in. I don't think the system could handle it right now based on the strain that it is currently under with our current citizens.

Haha, I had to laugh when california pot growers were protesting prop 19 because they knew that legalizing for recreational purposes would destroy their monopoly and drive prices down. Other than destroying the local economies of several Northern CA Emerald Triangle communities, I say go for it.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

I used to believe that we should just grant amnesty to all immigrants for the same reason. However, this legally entitles them to all the benefits of a citizen (duh), including medicaid, etc. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the estimated increased cost strain on these services was projected to double. Now before somebody screams 'racist' at me, you have to admit that the majority (not all) would be low income workers who, thanks to progressive tax structure, would not pay much income tax. Basically, they would stand to gain a LOT financially without paying much in. I don't think the system could handle it right now based on the strain that it is currently under with our current citizens.

Then put them on probationary status. Similar to some of the visas we have now. They are able to work 4-5 years with normal employment and are entitled all the benefits that employers provide. They are able to pursue education at colleges at in-state tuition after living there the required period set by the state, starting from the day of probation. However, they cannot get things like unemployment, medicaid, etc. that they were already not getting. During this period, they are paying for the benefits up front, and allowing the government to either use the funds or gather interest with them. The citizens are still able to better themselves with legal work, education, and etc. since they are still earning and spending money. But the other benefits citizens are entitled to aren't allowed until the are full citizens. I think they were thinking about doing something like that now but I forgot the name of the program. (I feel ignorant about these things sometimes, other times I feel ahead of the curve -_-)

I know, in NC at least, an alien can pursue a college education but they are considered non-resident for tuition status. Being able to pay resident status tuition after a year or 2 means that if they choose to pursue school, they will have some sort of education by the time they qualify for medicaid/other benefits and will be even less likely to use it.

 

[sleazye]

Then put them on probationary status. Similar to some of the visas we have now. They are able to work 4-5 years with normal employment and are entitled all the benefits that employers provide. They are able to pursue education at colleges at in-state tuition after living there the required period set by the state, starting from the day of probation. However, they cannot get things like unemployment, medicaid, etc. that they were already not getting. During this period, they are paying for the benefits up front, and allowing the government to either use the funds or gather interest with them. The citizens are still able to better themselves with legal work, education, and etc. since they are still earning and spending money. But the other benefits citizens are entitled to aren't allowed until the are full citizens. I think they were thinking about doing something like that now but I forgot the name of the program. (I feel ignorant about these things sometimes, other times I feel ahead of the curve -_-)

I know, in NC at least, an alien can pursue a college education but they are considered non-resident for tuition status. Being able to pay resident status tuition after a year or 2 means that if they choose to pursue school, they will have some sort of education by the time they qualify for medicaid/other benefits and will be even less likely to use it.

I like it. Looks like we solved the immigration problem, what's next? lol

 

[xiphoid2010]

I like it. Looks like we solved the immigration problem, what's next? lol

He does have a thought. This can even be put into place in conjunction with a value added tax system. This will capture all taxes from illegals and criminals (unless they don't spending the money they make).

Damn, I wish I had more time to think about it more. But it's time for me to get back to work, just as a pragmatic conversation going. The job of a resident never ends...

 

[confettiflyer]

I mean look at the inheritance tax, it's a joke. Steinbrenner's billions got taxed federally at zero percent.

I think that was some freak aberration of legistation. I believe the inheritance tax is back up to 30 something percent. I recall it was set to go from 0% to 50% going into 2011 just to satisfy some budget projections when it was 1st passed. I remember reading a few articles on whether there would be a spike in deaths from rich folks ahead of the January 2011 deadline.

 

[owlegrad]

I think that was some freak aberration of legistation. I believe the inheritance tax is back up to 30 something percent. I recall it was set to go from 0% to 50% going into 2011 just to satisfy some budget projections when it was 1st passed. I remember reading a few articles on whether there would be a spike in deaths from rich folks ahead of the January 2011 deadline.

Yeah I recall that too.

 

[Old Timer]

Prepare for the GDP to go way down and either domestic workers to be laid off or companies to move off shore. What incentive does any entrepreneur have to increase production when the majority of their compensation for that would go to the government? Government income actually tends to decrease when you push the Laffer curve that far to the right.

The Laffer curve, the mother fu**** Laffer curve it is a lie. Do you know when in the history of the United States Tax rates were cut at the same time spending was cut?

NEVER

There have been three major tax cuts in the history of the USA.

• The Kennedy tax cuts which coincided with the massive defense spending on Kennedy's defense build up and piled on top of that was the Great Society and the Vietnam war.
• The Regan Tax cuts which coincided with massive defense spending and massive discretionary spending Regan had to agree to get Tip Oneil on board.
• The Bush Tax cuts which coincided with massive government spending on Medicare Part D and the War on Terror.

So the idea that we can cut taxes and balance the budget is just a bunch of pure unadulterated bull caca.

Next, the idea that increasing taxes always leads to less government income is also a lie. Clinton raised taxes and not only balanced the budget, but it was in surplus. Regan raised taxes on the Social Security deal and he increased taxes with the 1986 tax simplification plan which in reality was giant butt fu**ing to the middle class as all of their deductions went by-by. That's right Ronald Ray-gun raised taxes multiple times as president and the economy grew. To look only at the 1981 tax cuts and ignoring everything else is like seeing a sick patient with a massive infection and giving him 5 antibiotics and claiming only the first antibiotic did anything.

I have tried my best. I have really tried to hold the M word back and not call people names. But if you believe in the laffer curve and you believe that in an economy of almost 15 trillion dollars that changing the marginal tax rates from 36% to 39% on incomes of over $300,000.00 will cause a drastic change in GDP. Then you are a

*****
​

Plain and simple, no doubt about it. There are so many variables in an economy of this size that fixating or marginal tax rates like dog on a bone just shows on a scale from 1-10 your knowledge of economics is -50,000,000,000,000,000.

​

 

[CynicalIntern]

Both of you go to Mercer? I graduated there in 2008, so I'm just wondering how you like it. I'm sure many of the professors have changed. Heck, in half a year, we had 8 profs leave (and they were the few remaining good ones).

I really like it. Sure, we've had some professors that are absolutely useless, but I think every school has those. And it seems that as we progress into our later years, the crappy ones are fewer and far between in our courses.

Pollock is still there. And will always be there, he is eternal. And I get that he's super polarizing, but as far as I'm concerned he's a great teacher, because I can differentiate "this stuff is hard and I can't easily get it" from "It's your fault I can't ace this test."

Everyone always says it was better back then about everything, so I can't take prior anecdotes about anything. For example, in ten years this year's elementary schoolers will be reminiscing about how great their Saturday morning cartoons were, when in actuality they pale to what I had.

Also, I die a little bit inside every time SHC prefaces a statement with "Ask anybody who works in a pharmacy," as I'm pretty confident every single person who has posted in this thread has logged more hours than she has, being as she's made it a point to proclaim that she will not work during the school year because grades are too important, so her month and a half with target and whatever six months of part-time experience she got with Walgreens obviously gives her enough experience to speak for every area of the country, regardless of your twenty years of RPh experience...

 

[SHC1984]

Perhaps I did not elaborate enough. Not doubling of the rate as it exists now (>375k),. I just meant, perhaps a 70% tax on marginal income over 5 million (or some other high number, I dont know enough to choose in particular, but something more like what europe has).. Most of the other major western nations have high marginal tax rates on the super-rich and if you take a close look you'll find a lot of europe is in better shape than the US, budget wise. And I dont believe there's a slippery slope that exists between people making >5 million and people making >250k. There's a big difference between the economic classes of these people, and, more importantly, in their voting numbers.

LOL...may I ask how that is suppose to be fair? I bet NONE of you guys would think that if YOU were making 1 million a year! Just because someone works their ass off and became successful they should get punished for it by paiding a higher tax rate? That doesn't seem fair at all. If YOU had a novel idea and then become a millionaire or billionaire b/c of it would YOU want to be punished and give all your money away??? OF COURSE NOT!!! People that say the rich should be taxed at a higher rate always seem really bitter to me. WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE PUNISHED for working HARD and becoming successful?​

The inheritance tax should be at ZERO. Once again, why do people in this thread think it is fair to punish those that work hard and become successful and leaving their wealth to their children?

THEY WORKED HARD FOR IT SO THEY DESERVED IT! Once again NONE of you guys would be saying this stuff if you made 1+ million a year.

I've never seen a medicaid patient driving a car worth more than maybe $15k, at most. Just because its a BMW or Mercedes doesn't mean its worth a ton of money. You can get a nice looking early 2000s BMW for well under $10k. If you aren't a car person, you would probably think its an expensive car when it isn't really.

Fair enough, I don't really know much about cars and I usually go to the dealership to look at them...never seen a BMW for 10K or 15K before to be honest. LOL...

 

[SHC1984]

Also, I die a little bit inside every time SHC prefaces a statement with "Ask anybody who works in a pharmacy," as I'm pretty confident every single person who has posted in this thread has logged more hours than she has, being as she's made it a point to proclaim that she will not work during the school year because grades are too important, so her month and a half with target and whatever six months of part-time experience she got with Walgreens obviously gives her enough experience to speak for every area of the country, regardless of your twenty years of RPh experience...

I would work once I find a job that I like and want to secure a spot with them. Publix wants to hire me but I do not like retail at all.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

LOL...may I ask how that is suppose to be fair? I bet NONE of you guys would think that if YOU were making 1 million a year! Just because someone works their ass off and became successful they should get punished for it by paiding a higher tax rate? That doesn't seem fair at all. If YOU had a novel idea and then become a millionaire or billionaire b/c of it would YOU want to be punished and give all your money away??? OF COURSE NOT!!! People that say the rich should be taxed at a higher rate always seem really bitter to me. WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE PUNISHED for working HARD and becoming successful?​

The inheritance tax should be at ZERO. Once again, why do people in this thread think it is fair to punish those that work hard and become successful and leaving their wealth to their children?

THEY WORKED HARD FOR IT SO THEY DESERVED IT! Once again NONE of you guys would be saying this stuff if you made 1+ million a year.


Fair enough, I don't really know much about cars and I usually go to the dealership to look at them...never seen a BMW for 10K or 15K before to be honest. LOL...

Hmm... you ever hear of a guy named Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

 

[Clavulanic]

The Laffer curve, the mother fu**** Laffer curve it is a lie. Do you know when in the history of the United States Tax rates were cut at the same time spending was cut?

NEVER

There have been three major tax cuts in the history of the USA.

• The Kennedy tax cuts which coincided with the massive defense spending on Kennedy's defense build up and piled on top of that was the Great Society and the Vietnam war.
• The Regan Tax cuts which coincided with massive defense spending and massive discretionary spending Regan had to agree to get Tip Oneil on board.
• The Bush Tax cuts which coincided with massive government spending on Medicare Part D and the War on Terror.

So the idea that we can cut taxes and balance the budget is just a bunch of pure unadulterated bull caca.

Next, the idea that increasing taxes always leads to less government income is also a lie. Clinton raised taxes and not only balanced the budget, but it was in surplus. Regan raised taxes on the Social Security deal and he increased taxes with the 1986 tax simplification plan which in reality was giant butt fu**ing to the middle class as all of their deductions went by-by. That's right Ronald Ray-gun raised taxes multiple times as president and the economy grew. To look only at the 1981 tax cuts and ignoring everything else is like seeing a sick patient with a massive infection and giving him 5 antibiotics and claiming only the first antibiotic did anything.

I have tried my best. I have really tried to hold the M word back and not call people names. But if you believe in the laffer curve and you believe that in an economy of almost 15 trillion dollars that changing the marginal tax rates from 36% to 39% on incomes of over $300,000.00 will cause a drastic change in GDP. Then you are a

*****
​

Plain and simple, no doubt about it. There are so many variables in an economy of this size that fixating or marginal tax rates like dog on a bone just shows on a scale from 1-10 your knowledge of economics is -50,000,000,000,000,000.

​

How is the Laffer curve a lie? All it states is that as you raise taxes to point X, goverment revenue from said taxes increases at some rate. Once you raise taxes past point X, government revenue from said taxes decreases at some rate.
The Laffer curve doesn't state a specific number or point where the increasing/decreasing revenue occurs.

While that person may be wrong, it doesn't mean the laffer curve isn't correct.

Also you seem to rage a lot in this forum. Take a chill pill, god forbid you play a FPS, you'd have a heart attack

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Also, I die a little bit inside every time SHC prefaces a statement with "Ask anybody who works in a pharmacy," as I'm pretty confident every single person who has posted in this thread has logged more hours than she has, being as she's made it a point to proclaim that she will not work during the school year because grades are too important, so her month and a half with target and whatever six months of part-time experience she got with Walgreens obviously gives her enough experience to speak for every area of the country, regardless of your twenty years of RPh experience...

So it's official: she's not a troll. Scary. What's she like in class?

We have a few professors that have done tons to help the poor and under-served populations at our school. They work with Indian Health Services and try and teach us to be compassionate people (or at least expose us to ideas that might make us more compassionate). If SHC spouted some of this stuff in these classes, I can just imagine their heads' exploding. Actually, a lot of our classmates' heads would explode, too.

 

[owlegrad]

I would work once I find a job that I like and want to secure a spot with them. Publix wants to hire me but I do not like retail at all.

I am not sure you are addressing the main point of that post...

 

[SHC1984]

So it's official: she's not a troll. Scary. What's she like in class?

We have a few professors that have done tons to help the poor and under-served populations at our school. They work with Indian Health Services and try and teach us to be compassionate people (or at least expose us to ideas that might make us more compassionate). If SHC spouted some of this stuff in these classes, I can just imagine their heads' exploding. Actually, a lot of our classmates' heads would explode, too.

Our school do not allow discussions during class. I don't talk in pharmacy school. I am busy listening to lecture. I am a troll b/c I don't agree with you? LOL... Your OPINIONS are trollish to me and some are stupid.

Hmm... you ever hear of a guy named Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

I didn't say billionaires don't help other people. However, NONE of them would like to have to government automatically take out 80% of their paycheck just because they are successful. Most help others BY THEIR choice. None however would like to have the government automatically take MORE money out b/c they are successful.

 

[Old Timer]

How is the Laffer curve a lie? All it states is that as you raise taxes to point X, goverment revenue from said taxes increases at some rate. Once you raise taxes past point X, government revenue from said taxes decreases at some rate.
The Laffer curve doesn't state a specific number or point where the increasing/decreasing revenue occurs.

While that person may be wrong, it doesn't mean the laffer curve isn't correct.

Also you seem to rage a lot in this forum. Take a chill pill, god forbid you play a FPS, you'd have a heart attack

The Laffer curve postulates that marginal tax rates are the sole determining factor in government income. It's obvious that at some point you can overtax, but the Laffer curve is a lie. There is NO proof that it is true. NONE. It has the evidence of snake oil. Tax cuts good, tax increases bad. As true as the statement Ronald Ray-gun never raised taxes. It's based on silly assumptions. Banish it from your mind...

 

[type b pharmD]

LOL...may I ask how that is suppose to be fair? I bet NONE of you guys would think that if YOU were making 1 million a year! Just because someone works their ass off and became successful they should get punished for it by paiding a higher tax rate? That doesn't seem fair at all. If YOU had a novel idea and then become a millionaire or billionaire b/c of it would YOU want to be punished and give all your money away??? OF COURSE NOT!!! People that say the rich should be taxed at a higher rate always seem really bitter to me. WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE PUNISHED for working HARD and becoming successful?​

The inheritance tax should be at ZERO. Once again, why do people in this thread think it is fair to punish those that work hard and become successful and leaving their wealth to their children?

THEY WORKED HARD FOR IT SO THEY DESERVED IT! Once again NONE of you guys would be saying this stuff if you made 1+ million a year.


Fair enough, I don't really know much about cars and I usually go to the dealership to look at them...never seen a BMW for 10K or 15K before to be honest. LOL...

actually you see a lot of millionaires and billionaires who are in favor of increasing taxes. If i was to become rich, I would expect to be required to give money to help fund the government, the rich support the poor, this is the way life works

 

[owlegrad]

.

Darn I had a really pithy comment here, but then the poster went back and changed their post rendering mine pointless. Oh well.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Our school do not allow discussions during class. I don't talk in pharmacy school. I am busy listening to lecture. I am a troll b/c I don't agree with you? LOL... Your OPINIONS are trollish to me and some are stupid.



I didn't say billionaires don't help other people. However, NONE of them would like to have to government automatically take out 80% of their paycheck just because they are successful. Most help others BY THEIR choice. None however would like to have the government automatically take MORE money out b/c they are successful.

I'll take that as a compliment that you think my opinions are stupid. I can't imagine you'd feel differently, as I try very hard not to make over-generalizations, and I understand the difference between Medicaid and Welfare. I do agree with you that if I greatly lost mental capacity, I would not want to live, but I think that choice should be up to the individual and their family. And, provided an individual is not in a vegetative state or in great pain, I think we should do what we can to keep them alive.

As for your second comment, actually, Bill Gates and especially his father were pro-income tax in Washington State in this last election. It didn't pass, so it's one of the reasons we have no money in the state right now. States can't run on deficits like our national government can. Rich people wanting taxes are rare, but they do exist. Just like a smaller percentage in every election votes for tax increases, as we understand society can't function without taxes. Roads, schools, libraries, police, firemen, etc. all depend on money from taxes. And rich people benefit lots because they live in our society. Go live on an island, provide all your own services, and see how well you do.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Yeah, the "Laugher" curve has been thoroughly thrashed in academia and in reality.

Not to mention the fact that the period of the greatest expansion of American manufacturing and general production was during the 1940s-1970s...when the top income bracket was over 70%...

 

[sleazye]

The Laffer curve, the mother fu**** Laffer curve it is a lie. Do you know when in the history of the United States Tax rates were cut at the same time spending was cut?

NEVER

There have been three major tax cuts in the history of the USA.

• The Kennedy tax cuts which coincided with the massive defense spending on Kennedy's defense build up and piled on top of that was the Great Society and the Vietnam war.
• The Regan Tax cuts which coincided with massive defense spending and massive discretionary spending Regan had to agree to get Tip Oneil on board.
• The Bush Tax cuts which coincided with massive government spending on Medicare Part D and the War on Terror.

So the idea that we can cut taxes and balance the budget is just a bunch of pure unadulterated bull caca.

Next, the idea that increasing taxes always leads to less government income is also a lie. Clinton raised taxes and not only balanced the budget, but it was in surplus. Regan raised taxes on the Social Security deal and he increased taxes with the 1986 tax simplification plan which in reality was giant butt fu**ing to the middle class as all of their deductions went by-by. That's right Ronald Ray-gun raised taxes multiple times as president and the economy grew. To look only at the 1981 tax cuts and ignoring everything else is like seeing a sick patient with a massive infection and giving him 5 antibiotics and claiming only the first antibiotic did anything.

I have tried my best. I have really tried to hold the M word back and not call people names. But if you believe in the laffer curve and you believe that in an economy of almost 15 trillion dollars that changing the marginal tax rates from 36% to 39% on incomes of over $300,000.00 will cause a drastic change in GDP. Then you are a

*****
​

Plain and simple, no doubt about it. There are so many variables in an economy of this size that fixating or marginal tax rates like dog on a bone just shows on a scale from 1-10 your knowledge of economics is -50,000,000,000,000,000.

​

Haha, thanks for holding back from calling me a ***** for so long. It must have been killing you inside. Feel better now?

As one of the above posters already said the Laffer curve implies that after a certain rate of taxation people decrease productivity. I don't care that you don't believe in it, you have to admit that if taxes go up high enough, productivity decreases at a certain point.

 

[sleazye]

Yeah, the "Laugher" curve has been thoroughly thrashed in academia and in reality.

Not to mention the fact that the period of the greatest expansion of American manufacturing and general production was during the 1940s-1970s...when the top income bracket was over 70%...

And as I said earlier, manufacturing began to decline around that time as well.

 

[SHC1984]

As for your second comment, actually, Bill Gates and especially his father were pro-income tax in Washington State in this last election. It didn't pass, so it's one of the reasons we have no money in the state right now. States can't run on deficits like our national government can. Rich people wanting taxes are rare, but they do exist. Just like a smaller percentage in every election votes for tax increases, as we understand society can't function without taxes. Roads, schools, libraries, police, firemen, etc. all depend on money from taxes. And rich people benefit lots because they live in our society. Go live on an island, provide all your own services, and see how well you do.

I didn't say the rich or anyone hated taxes. I don't hate taxes if they were flat. If everyone had to pay 25% or 30% or whatever I am fine with that. I just don't like it when people say "this group of people should pay 70% b/c they are rich" or "this group of people shouldnt have to pay any taxes and should get money BACK b/c they are poor" blah blah blah. There should NEVER be any special exceptions. EVERYONE should pay a SET percentage (whatever it is doesn't matter) everyone should pay the same percentage and I am fine with that.

I can't imagine anyone willing to pay out 70% for taxes, unless everyone else was paying that much.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

I didn't say the rich or anyone hated taxes. I don't hate taxes if they were flat. If everyone had to pay 25% or 30% or whatever I am fine with that. I just don't like it when people say "this group of people should pay 70% b/c they are rich" or "this group of people shouldnt have to pay any taxes and should get money BACK b/c they are poor" blah blah blah. There should NEVER be any special exceptions. EVERYONE should pay a SET percentage (whatever it is doesn't matter) everyone should pay the same percentage and I am fine with that.

I can't imagine anyone willing to pay out 70% for taxes, unless everyone else was paying that much.

But the problem with that is if we did that, we'd get rid of deductions. And then the amount we gave to charities would decrease (because a lot of people give to charities in part because they get the tax decreases). Then we'd need to give even more to Medicaid.

Even if we taxed rich people at 70%, with all the deductions they get, and the financial people they employ to make sure they get all that they can, they wouldn't pay that much.

And, if you're poor, you actually do pay a larger percentage of your income in taxes than the middle class and rich. A lot of our taxes, like sales tax and government fees, are very regressive. Do you really think a $100 speeding ticket is very much to a millionaire? Or the $55 or whatever fee it is to get a driver's license/register your car?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

And as I said earlier, manufacturing began to decline around that time as well.

No it didn't. Taxes were raised to over 90% in the 40s...and were gradually lowered to under 70% by the time Nixon took over...he screwed up American monetary policy...and American manufacturing didn't begin to decline until the 70s. And it really, really picked up in the 80s when the marginal taxation rate for the highest group was lowered to 50%.

Stop making things up. The Laffer Curve is just stupid. The decline of American manufacturing had to do with the purchase of cheaper labor in the third world and the importation of goods from countries with cheaper labor. It had nothing to do with the taxation of people in the US....of which has declined ever since 1944, anyway.

If any sort of correlation (which is the case here...certainly not causation) can be drawn, it is that lower taxes decrease industry....and certainly not the opposite of that.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I didn't say the rich or anyone hated taxes. I don't hate taxes if they were flat. If everyone had to pay 25% or 30% or whatever I am fine with that. I just don't like it when people say "this group of people should pay 70% b/c they are rich" or "this group of people shouldnt have to pay any taxes and should get money BACK b/c they are poor" blah blah blah. There should NEVER be any special exceptions. EVERYONE should pay a SET percentage (whatever it is doesn't matter) everyone should pay the same percentage and I am fine with that.

I can't imagine anyone willing to pay out 70% for taxes, unless everyone else was paying that much.

There needs to be some sort of progressive scale for taxation because what is rational is to tax disposable income. The amount of disposable income for a person making $15k a year is not 30%. Not even close. For a person making $125 million...it's more like 99%. See how unfair that might be if everyone was taxed the same rate?

Plus it acts as a way to avoid the creation of a plutocracy.