Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Abolish the current system of income tax and establish a national sales tax.
#17
If we were under FDR in today’s environment, the rich would pay over 100% of their income to taxes. What is missed in all this is all the OTHER taxes people pay in addition to Federal taxes like State tax (and gas taxes, higher sales taxes…). In CA, the highest income tax is 11%. So, if we fast forward FDR’s tax rate to today the rich would pay 105% of their income to tax. Sounds like the perfect liberal plan.
What is ignored in all comparisons of the top tax rate is the percentage of people that qualified for the top tax rate. IIRC, it used to be just the top 1%. I’m curious why the liberals here don’t want to simply set the tax rate for the rich at 100%? Why “allow” them to keep anything? Imagine the simplified tax form: “How much did you make? Send it in.”
#16 “For the 1 person making $1,000,000
YOU COULD HIRE 50 people at $10 per hour.
Do you really think that 1 person can do MORE work then 50..”
Perhaps it is not who does “more work” but whose work is valued more.
Naturally that is an elitist statement since we are all “equal”.
IdiotThomas–“You Know” as a weak tether to reality, whenever you start a sentence with “If” you should really check the end of that sentence. Yes, and you know “IF” frogs didn’t die and decompose, frogs would cover the earth 2 miles thick. And “IF” politicians weren’t corrupt, we’d be living in the land of milk and honey. But there is a reason there is an “IF” qualifying such statements: they precede idiotic assumptions relevant to nothing else in particular.
Then you go on to muse: “I’m curious why the liberals here don’t want to simply set the tax rate for the rich at 100%?” //// And the answer would arise from the same reason there is any tax at all: society would not function at that rate of taxation.
Gee Thomas, what would happen “IF” you were rational? Why, your posts would change dramatically. Yes, I know, not relevant to anything particular, such ifs.
32,
FDR’s tax rate was dropped in 1970..it was 70% at that time. ONLY ON BUSINESS.
Which is funny. AS a business didnt REALLY want to make a fortune..
After 1970, what has happened?
Fake OIL shortages, 2-3 collapses in the stock exchange. Major corps going bankrupt or SCREWING the public.
Think about it.
Before 1970, with the BOOM of the public buying POWER, to NOW, and the public has NO POWER.
#27
95% of all income tax is paid by only he top 3% of income earners, and the lower 40% pay no tax, with a very large percent of them actually getting money back in the form of EIC credit and such.
#36 Mextli,
If we are talking about a ‘true’ income tax, where taxes paid are proportional to income received, then your figure of 95% of taxes being paid by the top 3% sounds about right, or at least not too far from ideal.
As per my #30, the top 20% control 93% of the money, so shouldn’t they be paying 93% of the taxes, with the bottom 80% paying the remaining 7% of the taxes? If we take that further, the bottom 40% should be paying only 3.5% of the taxes, which is about what we have right now.
Do a flat tax and you end up with something rather similar, except that upper tax brackets hate it because of the lack of deductions, and they would pay more in tax because it would be based on gross income, not adjusted.
“GOP” GREEDY OBESE PIGS – the Party of the Rich !!! Any you know what ? They WANT EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH !!! There is no end to their GREED !!!
Jim,
BOTH PARTIES are RICH.
There is NO democratic nation, in the world that has ONLY 2 to select from. ONLY THE USA..
But, even here, we have OTHER GROUPS..and NONE has the power/wealth of these 2 groups.
THAT is the problem.
These 2 groups have lobbied into use, laws that make it VERY difficult to RUN for office. YOU can NOT run if you have NO MONEY.
I WOULD LOVE,
All money to be placed into a POT and equally distributed between running persons.
To get to RUN in an election you need 1 million signatures.
all WILL BE GIVEN equal time on TV..
REAL DEBATES…ALL will attend and it could last DAYS (as they used to).
REAL questions..WE all get to ask..
To balance the budget, they just have to lower spending to the levels in 2000.
#34
bobbo the child from left field, if you are going to jump into a conversation at least have the decency to understand the *entire* discussion. If you are going to stand by a cartoon that states that the highest tax rate under FDR was 94% and so “only” 40% isn’t that bad then you need some actual perspective.
Then you go on to muse: “I’m curious why the liberals here don’t want to simply set the tax rate for the rich at 100%?” //// And the answer would arise from the same reason there is any tax at all: society would not function at that rate of taxation.
Again, you are acting like a child and missed the point. What tax rate is fair for the “rich”? If 40% is fair because 94% was fair in the past, then why isn’t 94% fair now? Why isn’t 95% fair? When a politician (or liberal) claims that something is “fair”, it is a good bet it isn’t. TBH, I’m surprised the economically ignorant on the left haven’t suggested a reverse income tax: if you are in the top 1% of wage earners, you pay 99% of it in tax, top 2%, 98% of your income, top 3%, 97%…
I’ve been paying unemployment insurance premiums since I was 15 and have used it once for about 3 months. I god forbid I lose my job and couldn’t find another for even 2 years they still wouldn’t come close to paying me back what was took out. My point is that these are taxes too. You don’t get unemployment unless you had a job and they took money out of your paycheck. People have paid in. This isn’t a handout. If you’re against extending unemployment, your saying that only uber-rich people should get tax breaks.
No representation without taxation.
Otherwise an untaxed majority will just take what it wants from those who actually produce the wealth.
And this would be the END of rule of law by consent of the governed.
Everyone needs skin in the game. Everyone needs to feel the pinch of government on their wallets.
stopher, it is an extension of unemployment benefits that are being blocked. The first so many weeks are there, the current bills is to pay for beyond the first n weeks as is usually paid out.
#41–IdiotThomas==what “perspective” includes wasting everyone’s time by musing about a tax rate of 105% ? I must admit I don’t understand how pointing out the absurd irrelevancy of your best ideas is “resting on a cartoon.” But I will rely on the last remains of your cognitive ability to make that connection.
“If 40% is fair . . . . .” /// Ha, ha Still tripped up by that bugaboo “if” even after having it pointed out to you. While it may be needed, I don’t think baseball bats should be used to bring reality to anyone. Reality will come its own time.
Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs. Roughly, that is done by a democratic process until the politicians are allowed to run uncorected for multiple terms. “Nobody cares about the deficit” was a clarion call that our politicians had left the reservation==and yet we the people elected the Bush Cabal for a second term.
Both parties are a scourge to good governance. But since both parties are for excessive spending, and only the Dems are for taxing to pay for the spending, only a RETARD would vote Republican, the willingness to do so bringing us to our current situation.
#45
You completely evaded the question. What tax rate is fair for the rich? Clearly you believe that all people should not be taxed at the same rate, so what rate is fair for the highest bracket and more importantly why?
Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs
Completely irrelevant. What you are discussing is overall tax revenue and budget balancing. I’m talking about individual tax rates. Of course, if that were the justification for higher taxes, our taxes would be 10x worse as politicians are nothing if not good at spending other people’s money.
Both parties are a scourge to good governance
Completely agree. Case in point, it was a Democrat and a Democrat controlled Congress that signed the biggest waste of money in our country’s history at a time when we already had a record deficit. The Federal government does not have a revenue problem: it has a spending problem.
I support a consumption tax . That goes for using public schools as well. I’m tired of having nearly half my local taxes go to train your sheeple spawn.
Well Wall Street and the banks seem to be the darlings of the Dems and we can all see how much good that did to stimulate the economy.
On the other hand the Dems just love to soak it to small business. What the crap those people don’t really need to make a profit and the government will use the money better, right?
#45–Thomas==you say:
1. You completely evaded the question. /// Thats because the original questions were posed to YOU, and you are still evading them. But, at least you are being relevant now, so I will demonstrate for your edification, how to answer a question.
2. What tax rate is fair for the rich? /// There is no “fair” tax in the abstract, or with almost the same meaning, “fair” could only begin to be evaluated when a 5-10-20 budget is laid out clearly showing how a balanced budget/elimination of public debt was going to be achieved.
3. Clearly you believe that all people should not be taxed at the same rate, so what rate is fair for the highest bracket and more importantly why? /// Lets see. When I have only hinted at the general approach, how can further detail be “clear” to you unless you enjoy BS’s yourself? It makes “sense” to me that the rich would pay more as they “have” more. Not only in income, net wealth, but overall benefits. It also makes sense that “everyone” should pay taxes so that everyone gets the allusion they are in this together. Its all to do very much with “discretionary income” after base needs are covered. Does it make any sense to tax a person 15% when they are working two jobs to put food on the table? I suppose so===assuming after they pay the 15% they also get support from other programs. IE==taxing poor people makes as much sense as not taxing the rich.
4. Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs
Completely irrelevant. /// No, “fair” can only be evaluated in terms of what is needed, wanted, and possible. Like a fair tax before Bush started two wars would rationally be less than what the tax rate on EVERYONE would be after the two wars were started? I hope you see the point and will stop babbling like a RepubliTARD.
5. What you are discussing is overall tax revenue and budget balancing. I’m talking about individual tax rates. /// Again, what else is fair but a tax rate from all sources calculated to meet the expected expenditures?
Of course, if that were the justification for higher taxes, our taxes would be 10x worse as politicians are nothing if not good at spending other people’s money.
Both parties are a scourge to good governance
Completely agree. Case in point, it was a Democrat and a Democrat controlled Congress that signed the biggest waste of money in our country’s history at a time when we already had a record deficit. The Federal government does not have a revenue problem: it has a spending problem. /// Like it or not, the two are related.
BUT I’LL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT: The tax rate for the rich should be between zero and 90%. Zero income tax was the rule for most of our existence. The short fall to be made up in consumption taxes etc still all to be paid more by the rich than anyone else. And 90% because as the Beatles told us, at “One for you, Nineteen for Me” at that rate it seems all good patriotic people pick up and move to Switzerland.
I reckon had they shared the bailouts amongst the population, there would no longer be problems.
#50
In the first part of your post, you initially evaded the question by trying to interject budgetary concerns whereas the fundamental question relates to individual tax rates. You evaded it right up until this statement:
Its all to do very much with “discretionary income” after base needs are covered.
This is the mantra of the fiscal liberal. It short, what matters is how much you have left over after the government takes its share. That is absolutely 180 degrees from fair; that is punishment for success. What you suggest involves the ever slippery determination of “base needs”. This is the “each according to their needs” form of tyranny. If this is really your opinion then you should favor a tax system where the government determines how much money the average person should have left after taxes and takes everything else.
4. Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs
Completely irrelevant. /// No, “fair” can only be evaluated in terms of what is needed, wanted, and possible.
Again NO! We should determine what is fair FIRST and THEN, given how much money to which that equates, determine spending. I.e. spending should fluctuate given the amount of revenue on hand not the other way around. We should not spending like mad and then later say, “Wow. We don’t have enough. Let’s tax them some more.” You do not buy a car before you determine whether you can pay for it.
The tax rate for the rich should be between zero and 90%
At 90%, in CA, you would pay 101% of your income to tax and that is not counting municipal taxes. In addition, you are saying that FDR’s upper rate of 94% was unfair.
I agree that everyone should pay some tax. In fact, as far as I know, at no time in our country has it ever been the case that people paid no tax of any kind. There are sales taxes, excise taxes, consumption taxes and so on in addition to income taxes.
One of the biggest problems we have now in this country is practice of tinkering with taxes to pay for programs instead of controlling spending to fit revenue. I think the biggest difference in our philosophies is that I think that taxes should be raised or lowered *only* to maximize tax revenue. If increasing taxes on the rich increases the overall tax revenue, then I’d agree with it. However, the tax rate should not be changed to fit spending. Instead, spending should be changed to fit available revenue.
And lest we forget……..REGISTERED RELIGIOUS ENTITIES DO NOT PAY TAXES. AT.ALL. Tax ALL religion. Now. Today. Forever.
# 12 bobbo, The Don Juan of partner-less loving said,
Well, I’m not sure what he said, thanks for that completely incoherent reply.
I’ll just assume you missed my point. You usually do.
Check this out:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3387.shtml
I guess the cartoonist didn’t have space to draw an animal that would represent the war that the Democrats got elected to end but somehow never found the time.
#52–Thomas==so you can devine “fair” in a vacuum huh? Sounds like dogma unconnected to reality. Well Done.
#54–Somebody==I agree. I was fooling myself even I could understand it even as I was writing it. Not much better now. I was in the Thomas Zone. The truth unrelated to variables will often be difficult to understand. So much for nuance.
Too many animals in this boat.
Not depicted: all of them.
In reality, there is no such thing as a “fair” income tax. Even if you taxed everyone at a flat rate (for example 15%) some would say it is an unfair burden on a poor person since they have so little to begin with. It could also be argued that the flat rate paid by a rich person us unfair since they are paying more in terms of dollars for using the same (or in many cases, less) government services than anyone else.
A consumption tax would even things out a bit but I am sure there is a viable argument against that as well.