Who should get a tax increase?

[BostonPirate]

why do you feel that way?

I will reserve my opinion for a few posts so that I do not influence the poll for a bit.

Thanks guys.

The Poll is multiple choice and you can select each group that you think ought to pay more to pay down the debt and deficit.

Please also include any ideas you may have on changes to the tax code.

 

[BostonPirate]

Why isn't GE an option?

that would be the tax code issue I suggested.

Corporate tax levels are high. Unfortunately there are so many corporate welfare programs in the tax code that only small business actually pays them.

But This is also about personal citizenship and ownership of a government by its people. Americans love to think they have the highest standard of living. That costs money.

Who should pay more than they currently are for the lifestyle we enjoy? Feeding the poor, elderly and infirm used to be an american value... Now, the need to have MORE by some is trying to make helping the needy seem ugly.

So lets talk about the tax code and its loopholes but not duck the obvious point that the politicans don't have the balls to tell us right now... If we are going to get out of the hole, taxes are going to have to go up on the citizenry.

 

[maxpowr9]

Everyone gets a tax raise.

 

[chrisrobin]

Return the tax tables to pre-Reaganite days and we'll be okay.

 

[moistmaker]

Tax is theft, so noone.

Rich people having money is good, because they either invest it or put it into savings which go towards investment. Without this capital accumulation there could be nowhere near the productive activity that we have today that we owe our prosperity to

 

[MoltenRock III]

let the Bush tax cuts expire across all brackets.
close corporate loop-holes.

and then revisit the issue after that.

Agreed!

The USA is currently spending more on corporate welfare than it is on welfare for her poor and indigent citizens.

 

[Jack Springer]

Close ALL the loopholes.

Do away with all the recent special tax-exempt groups.

 

[CowboyBob]

Return the tax rates to the Eisenhower era. The Republicans want social issues to go back there anyway.

 

[chuck10x]

1 miilion dollars a year is the magic number for a tax increase.

Though I am no fan of it, It may be time for a flat tax, A percentage of all income - no exceptions.

 

[chrisrobin]

Return the tax rates to the Eisenhower era. The Republicans want social issues to go back there anyway.

Tax rates were at about 90% (vs. 35% now) when Ike was in office. How in the world was there an accumulation of wealth back then?

Clue? The Junior Senator from Wisconsin, the late, great Joseph P. McCarthy asked us to believe that Eisenhower was a "conscious Communist agent" - You know, the 5-star General who liberated Europe. It was a hard sell then, but I'll bet you could get some tea-bagger to fuck him over now (Ike, that is).

 

[Kulindahr]

Tax is theft, so noone.

Rich people having money is good, because they either invest it or put it into savings which go towards investment. Without this capital accumulation there could be nowhere near the productive activity that we have today that we owe our prosperity to

A national debt is a form of theft in itself.

Yes, taxation is theft -- but so is the trickle-up economic system we have, whereby unearned wealth accrues to those who have lots already.

Super-rich people having money isn't good at all, these days. They don't invest it, they play financial games that don't generate jobs. They put in into "instruments" that suck money uphill. When they do invest it, they take it out of the country and put it in places where labor is cheap.

Yes, having capital available for loaning helps the economy. But concentrating wealth hurts the economy. Having lots of poor people hurts the economy as well. Letting our infrastructure continue to disintegrate hurts the economy. Having hundreds of billions of interest on the debt flow out of the country hurts the economy.

Many economic truths being referenced by the Republicans have one problem: the Republicans, with the connivance of Democrats all too often, have changed the rules and rigged the game so that actions which once would have been beneficial to the economy now tend to be beneficial only to the uber-wealthy. So while taxation is in essence theft, to end taxation at the moment would be a step toward chaos and tyranny. Indeed, any steps toward tax reductions which do not favor the bottom end of the economic spectrum are steps toward tyranny.

Return the tax rates to the Eisenhower era. The Republicans want social issues to go back there anyway.

Until the debt is gone, sounds good to me. Just raise the individual exemption to $20k.

 

[chance1]

I voted for 500k and over

i think the recent "debate" stating that "millionaires" were those making 250k or more was .......... ludicrous

it's expensive to live in this country
if u have a family
if u own a home and pay real estate taxes
if u have mouths to feed

500k = rich
mighy be simpler

im a big believer that we are a nation of conspicuous consumers - buying "stuff" because .......... we can or rather we think we can

500k and up is my vote

buy less stuff u 500k and uppers

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

WHO the fuck voted for taxing poor people that have next to nothing?

 

[Kulindahr]

WHO the fuck voted for taxing poor people that have next to nothing?

I dunno, but I'd agree to raise the rate at the bottom -- IFF the individual exemption was set at $20k.

 

[JB3]

Why isn't there an 'all of the above' option?

 

[BostonPirate]

Why isn't there an 'all of the above' option?

because its multiple choice, and you can't have the last choice along with any of the rest

You were free to choose all first five if you had desired though

 

[QuinnRider]

The rich can take a bigger tax increase than the poor. If I make 18,000 a year and my friend makes 500,00 a year, mayonaise still costs 4 bucks a jar, he's rich, he can afford 2 jars, I can barely afford 1. Which does it hit harder? Say 10% of mine is taken, so 1,800 and 20% of my friends is taken, 25,000. They still have over 450,000 left. They are more able to take a tax increase than anyone else.



Okay I know that sounds soooo stupid, lol, but thats my logic. If 3 grand is taken away from me, I can't pay my bills for the year. If 25 grand is taken away from a super wealthy person, and they cant pay their bills, then somethings wrong there.

 

[hotatlboi]

Tax rates were at about 90% (vs. 35% now) when Ike was in office. How in the world was there an accumulation of wealth back then?

Hint: there wasn't on the scale anything like there is today.

The net worth of an average CEO was a not unreasonable multiplier of the average worker's.

 

[thevofl]

Why not a flat tax? 15% (or another appropriate number) on all income over 20K (or another appropriate number). No more deductions for owning a farm with bees or having a railroad nearby or buying a hybrid.

Or,

Why not a national sales tax, not a VAT which is hidden, but one that everyone sees when they buy something?

 

[JB3]

because its multiple choice, and you can't have the last choice along with any of the rest

You were free to choose all first five if you had desired though

But I want taxes raised on everybody! (more at the top though!)