Thread Rating:

TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
February 1st, 2019 at 10:02:48 AM permalink
I think jumping straight to 70% is too big a pill to swallow for most people, even if the people complaining about it will never have to deal with it, and the people who DO have to deal with it can easily afford it.

What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.
Minty
Minty
Joined: Jan 23, 2015
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 536
February 1st, 2019 at 10:03:59 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

I think jumping straight to 70% is too big a pill to swallow for most people, even if the people complaining about it will never have to deal with it, and the people who DO have to deal with it can easily afford it.

What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.



This is probably the best idea I've seen in this thread so far.
"Just because I'm not doing anything illegal, doesn't mean I won't have to defend myself someday." -Chip Reese
Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
Thanks for this post from:
tringlomane
February 1st, 2019 at 10:25:30 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

I think jumping straight to 70% is too big a pill to swallow for most people, even if the people complaining about it will never have to deal with it, and the people who DO have to deal with it can easily afford it.

What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.



The same rate was cut from 70% to 28% from 1982-1988. 6 years.

The experiment is over. Trickle-down is a failure. The time for bold moves and big ideas is now.
Dalex64
Dalex64
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Thanks for this post from:
Steverinos
February 1st, 2019 at 11:00:33 AM permalink
Quote: Steverinos

The same rate was cut from 70% to 28% from 1982-1988. 6 years.

The experiment is over. Trickle-down is a failure. The time for bold moves and big ideas is now.



well, not the best comparison.

the top rate in 1981 was 70% on incomes above about 272,000, or about 544,000 in "2013 dollars"
in 1982 that dropped to 50% on incomes above about 100,000, mostly by eliminating the higher brackets and slightly raising the tax on 100k from 43% to 50%

the new tax they are talking about is on incomes over 1,000,000, not 544,000, so people earning between those numbers won't see a reversion to 1981 tax levels.

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

I agree trickle-down is a failure.
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
Thanks for this post from:
mcallister3200RogerKintRSMooseton
February 1st, 2019 at 11:28:54 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

doesn't fly dude because that's not what you said or meant

you said this:




you were obviously referring to average people, not people with income above $𝟏𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧



your dog won't hunt



I find it typical for conservatives to care about other people as much as themselves. Libs trying to shake everyone down under the guise of some sort of warped idea of fairness, not so much.
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
February 2nd, 2019 at 10:42:19 AM permalink
quick search shows that there are 540 billionaires in the US. Let them all vote on whether or not there should be a wealth tax for anyone with that much money. Make it one vote for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Who could ever be against that?
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
February 2nd, 2019 at 11:07:18 AM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

I find it typical for conservatives to care about other people as much as themselves. Libs trying to shake everyone down under the guise of some sort of warped idea of fairness, not so much.



I find it typical for both conservatives and liberals to care about other people as much as themselves. They just have different ways of going about it. Divisiveness and generalizations (such as you are displaying here) doesn't help anyone.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11680
February 2nd, 2019 at 11:53:32 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

quick search shows that there are 540 billionaires in the US. Let them all vote on whether or not there should be a wealth tax for anyone with that much money. Make it one vote for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Who could ever be against that?




Lets MAGA by returning to the days of the rollicking 1950s. Economy was great, government was builing roads, highways and infrastructure, all with a 90% top tax rate and not a single billionaire.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3750
February 2nd, 2019 at 12:06:42 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

quick search shows that there are 540 billionaires in the US. Let them all vote on whether or not there should be a wealth tax for anyone with that much money. Make it one vote for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Who could ever be against that?



How about for president in 2020, every citizen 18 or older gets to vote.

Whoever gets the most votes, is president.

Who could ever be against that?
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11680
Thanks for this post from:
RS
February 2nd, 2019 at 12:08:18 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

How about for president in 2020, every citizen 18 or older gets to vote.

Whoever gets the most votes, is president.

Who could ever be against that?



The Founding Fathers, among many others.

  • Jump to: