Get ready for the Price increase

[robby]

Everyone should pay 10%. Thats it. If the government cant live on that, then they need to stop spending. No more billons wasted. What we just left in Afganistan is more thwn some country's GDP.
If you make more, you pay more. No more giving a free ride to those that earn $15 an hour and less. EVERYONE must pay their share. Fair is fair.
10% of 100= $10
10% of 1,000,000 = $100,000
Who pays more?

10% would never cut it!
I know that people love to focus on the smaller items that are Pork filled.
Taking 2020 and 2021 out of the picture and just focusing on the economy pre and post pandemic spending it would mean in order to do 10% it's going to mean that four things would have to take a major cut.

Social Security
The Military
Medicare
Medicade

That is not going to be popular on either side of the isle. I do agree it should be a flat Tax, but I think something like 20-25%. BTW there is no way you can Tax people who working below or just at the living wage mark. It may seem like an even deal but once you do that you can say bye bye to many business sectors. This in turn is going to domino into higher crime, more Police needed, more prisons needed and a whole lot of other very expensive problems to deal with.

 

[time2roll]

Everyone should pay 10%. Thats it. If the government cant live on that, then they need to stop spending. No more billons wasted. What we just left in Afganistan is more thwn some country's GDP.
If you make more, you pay more. No more giving a free ride to those that earn $15 an hour and less. EVERYONE must pay their share. Fair is fair.
10% of 100= $10
10% of 1,000,000 = $100,000
Who pays more?

Yes and the CEO should be paid no more than 50x the lowest paid worker. If the top guy is so smart he can figure out how to pay a better wage to all. The art of paying slave wages is overrated. It should not be about less for them is more for CEO but to have everyone and the economy grow together. There is no economic limit where one must lose for the other to win. All can win together. We are supposed to act like we are on the same team and support each other.

And when a company buys back stock instead of paying out taxable dividends, the company can pay 10% of that too.

(50x and 10% are just numbers for example)

 

[Sanwizard]

Yes and the CEO should be paid no more than 50x the lowest paid worker. If the top guy is so smart he can figure out how to pay a better wage to all. The art of paying slave wages is overrated. It should not be about less for them is more for CEO but to have everyone and the economy grow together. There is no economic limit where one must lose for the other to win. All can win together. We are supposed to act like we are on the same team and support each other.

And when a company buys back stock instead of paying out taxable dividends, the company can pay 10% of that too.

(50x and 10% are just numbers for example)

Guys, go start your own company, instead of bitching about guys who did and are successful. Then pay yourself the same wage as the janitor. I am sure you will be loved by all.

 

[time2roll]

Guys, go start your own company, instead of bitching about guys who did and are successful. Then pay yourself the same wage as the janitor. I am sure you will be loved by all.

Ownership is different. Pay yourself all the dividends you like.

 

[Hedges]

10% would never cut it!

Used to!

Yes and the CEO should be paid no more than 50x the lowest paid worker. If the top guy is so smart he can figure out how to pay a better wage to all. The art of paying slave wages is overrated.

I'm smart enough.
Just fire anyone making less than 2% of my pay.
Outsource what they used to do, maybe to China?


I like the idea of flat 10% tax zero deductions.
No reason why "Tax Preparation" should be an industry. It consumes man hours and produces nothing.

Of course, businesses are taxed on "Profits", which means "Gross Revenue" minus "Expenses"

 

[time2roll]

Of course, businesses are taxed on "Profits", which means "Gross Revenue" minus "Expenses"

Yes and sometimes I think there should be a minimum of 1% of sales excise tax for those companies that that are reporting losses year after year.

 

[robby]

Used to!

The Tax rate use to be something like 90% on income exceeding $200K back in the 1950s. Adjusted dollars would put that at about $2 million today. Anyway it's a pipe dream to think that a 10% tax rate would ever work. The people who make those decisions would be out of a Job by the next election. I think we can all agree that cutting the Military and Social Security budgets in half are not going to go over well for any President.

 

[Hedges]

Used to not even be a federal income tax.

That was implemented (Thanks Women's Christian Temperance Union) because 2/3 of federal budget came from whisky tax, so some other revenue source was needed.
The Noble Experiment didn't last long. But the income tax has been with us ever since.

In the Beginning, Congress created Income Taxes. The top rate was 7%, and It was Good.

History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2024

bradfordtaxinstitute.com

It isn't even the job of the federal government to fund all those state program. Federal Courts, National Defense. Anything else assigned them by the constitution??

We the people are the ones who can make those decisions, but only if a majority capable of swaying congressional elections make their demands known. Otherwise, we are the ones being ruled. I don't hold out any hope.

 

[robby]

Guys, go start your own company, instead of bitching about guys who did and are successful. Then pay yourself the same wage as the janitor. I am sure you will be loved by all.

LOL did you make that up or are you talking about the real thing? You do know that Zuckerburg and a bunch of other billionaires pay themselves $1 a week. I am not so sure that his employees love him but his accountants sure do.

 

[Pyrofx]

If you dont know what they pay themselves, dont guess. We know Ellison, and it's not a buck a week.

 

[robby]

If you dont know what they pay themselves, dont guess. We know Ellison, and it's not a buck a week.

Who is Ellison?

 

[Pyrofx]

Just some guy.
You just validated my comment

 

[12VoltInstalls]

If the government cant live on that, then they need to stop spending.

That one sentence could potentially fix a lot of things

 

[12VoltInstalls]

10% would never cut it!
I know that people love to focus on the smaller items that are Pork filled.
Taking 2020 and 2021 out of the picture and just focusing on the economy pre and post pandemic spending it would mean in order to do 10% it's going to mean that four things would have to take a major cut.

Social Security
The Military
Medicare
Medicade

We’re in that position now. Tax increases being implemented will shrink middle business sector profits resulting in less net dollar receipts by the government in taxes, overall. Historically repeated.

But there would be a lot more money for the four things mentioned if we phased down welfare. You forgot to mention that chunk.

We need to remove the idleness incentive. It’s morally wrong for the $35-65K/yr workers to support welfare. There should be zero unemployment right now but even harbor freight and Home Depot have trouble filling positions. Currently the walmart parking lots have a bunch of people living in cars and vans with brand new 12# phones that sit around doing nothing all day.

The budget could be and should be cut- a lot. Between government waste, funded social program waste, and bloated welfare- a Madison, Kennedy, Reagan, or Webster would find a gazillion percent to cut. Would there be consequences? Yes, but they’d rectify themselves in 6-10 years as “the natural price’ effect settled itself. Standard of living may decline, constituent autonomy and economic growth would increase.

It wouldn’t fly, though. People have gone soft. If folks had a 1930s depression mentality with today’s economy there’d be way more people financially sound and a lot less complaining.

 

[Sanwizard]

The Tax rate use to be something like 90% on income exceeding $200K back in the 1950s. Adjusted dollars would put that at about $2 million today. Anyway it's a pipe dream to think that a 10% tax rate would ever work. The people who make those decisions would be out of a Job by the next election. I think we can all agree that cutting the Military and Social Security budgets in half are not going to go over well for any President.

Less tax means more revenue to the government. That was proven every time taxes are cut. Its the nutjob spending and corruption that is the problem.
Drive around Queens NY, and look at how they take care of the roadside. Weeds, garbage, and potholes. NY has one of the highest taxes in the country, including gas tax. All that money goes into the pockets of cronies, and perhaps 1/8th is spent on the actual roads. Democrat run.
Then drive around Charleston SC. Grass is all cut, roads are great, clean, gas prices 50% less. Lowest taxes.
Its not the money. Its who steals it.

 

[BMcL]

Everyone WHO IS EMPLOYED pays the same tax rate.
Rich people who live off investment income pay a slightly lower rate.
There is a reason for this. You've already paid taxes once on the money you save.
So when you earn interest or dividends off of savings, your tax rate is lower.
Quit your bit*hin and start saving/investing like all the smart people.

 

[Sanwizard]

Everyone WHO IS EMPLOYED pays the same tax rate.
Rich people who live off investment income pay a slightly lower rate.
There is a reason for this. You've already paid taxes once on the money you save.
So when you earn interest or dividends off of savings, your tax rate is lower.
Quit your bit*hin and start saving/investing like all the smart people.

Nope. I am employed, but pay a much higher rate than my brother. Its based on income level. And its mostly old people on a fixed budget living off investment income.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

San wiz has it
Btw “Investment Income” is not a single thing in derivation or dispersement. Further, certain ‘investment/savings dollars’ are taxed at withdrawal as income because they were saved originally as deferred income (not being taxed).

To obtain the nominal $55K median income at retirement one needs to have saved or otherwise built a estimated $1.3million portfolio to sustain growth to avoid depletion to quickly. In retirement, you will be taxed on what you withdraw. Pretty much if you can’t spend and eat with it it is probably not taxable for most people

 

[BMcL]

Nope. I am employed, but pay a much higher rate than my brother. Its based on income level. And its mostly old people on a fixed budget living off investment income.

Good grief, I was talking about the tax tables apply to us equally.
The rich aren't cheating. Their income comes from savings; that's why it's taxed at a lower rate.
Eliminate that lower rate and tax the rich more ?
You just punish the incentive to get ahead.

 

[Hedges]

So long as we can keep inflation going, we get to take people's "investment income", where their life's savings from working years "earns" interest or dividends while dwindling in actual buying power.
It's a twofer! We tax them once when they earn the money, and again when they cash it out of whatever investment/savings vehicle it was saved in, where it may not have even been treading water.
If we could just tax both income and investment income at 50%, we get to take 75% of their money before they spend it in retirement.

Taxes on investments are not based on return above inflation, not "official" inflation nor "real". They are based on increase in number of (dwindling in value) dollars.