If you were to write tax policy...

[Bacon King]

Personally, I like Neil Boortz's FairTax idea.

[A18]

Two rates of 14% and 27%. Cut off at $90,000. Capital gains taxed at 15% maximum. Flat corporate tax rate of 20%.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Expand the sin taxes to include caffiene and marijuana.
2. Change the corporate income tax from a tax on net income to a tax on gross income with a maximum rate of 20%
3. Eliminate most personal income tax decductions and go to a flat 20%.
4.  Set the upper rate on the inheritance tax to 20%.
5.  Eliminate the capital gains tax.

[© tweed]

1. Expand the sin taxes to include caffiene and marijuana.

Caffeine?  why?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Expand the sin taxes to include caffiene and marijuana.

Caffeine?  why?

Why not?  I know that the Mormons at least consider it something to avoid, and anything that makes it more expensive for kids to be hyper is generally a good idea.

[MaC]

Two rates of 14% and 27%. Cut off at $90,000. Capital gains taxed at 15% maximum. Flat corporate tax rate of 20%.

Phillip, I thought you were for the 8.4% flat income tax.

[A18]

Not politically feasible. Ideally, I'd be for no income tax and some low consumption taxes.

Federal revenues as a share of GDP would be about 7 percent (4 percent for defense, 3 percent for everything else).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'd have a single tax for income.  No estate tax or payroll tax,  Gifts and inheritances would also be taxed to the recipient as income, although if they were large I think they should be able to allocate the money over several years for tax purposes.

As for the rates, I would make it steeply progressive.  Everyone making under $100K would pay about as much as they do now (minus payroll taxes), while tax brackets would increase from there so that people making >$10 million/year would pay about 90-95% of their income above this. 

[A18]

You are a terrible person.

[opebo]

I'd have a single tax for income.  No estate tax or payroll tax,  Gifts and inheritances would also be taxed to the recipient as income, although if they were large I think they should be able to allocate the money over several years for tax purposes.

As for the rates, I would make it steeply progressive.  Everyone making under $100K would pay about as much as they do now (minus payroll taxes), while tax brackets would increase from there so that people making >$10 million/year would pay about 90-95% of their income above this. 

Excellent plan NickG!

As for Philip, he doesn't understand his class identity.

[Emsworth]

People making >$10 million/year would pay about 90-95% of their income above this. 

You might as well take all of it. Such a tax policy would not only (a) be tyrannical, but also (b) result in economic disaster.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

[John Dibble]

As for Philip, he doesn't understand his class identity.

And you don't understand basic economic concepts or reality for that matter, what's your point?

[Emsworth]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

That's a tax of more than 99% for those who make millions of dollars a year.

[A18]

Now do you see what kind of people are in your party?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

That's a tax of more than 99% for those who make millions of dollars a year.

Yes, if you make more than $400 million per year. I'm sure that sounds tragic to Republicans like you.

[A18]

You get to keep $4 million for $400 million of work?

Maybe if the Soviet Union just had a little more time and money, it would have worked.

[Emsworth]

Something like.
Define the ideal after tax salary to be x=$40,000

If your actual income is i, after taxes you are left with the geometric mean of these, sqrt(i*x).

That's a tax of more than 99% for those who make millions of dollars a year.

Yes, if you make more than $400 million per year. I'm sure that sounds tragic to Republicans like you.

It's not tragic, but tyrannical. And will you please demonstrate how believing (a) that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, and (b) a 99% tax rate is oppressive, makes one a Republican.

[opebo]

You get to keep $4 million for $400 million of work?

'Work' has nothing to do with persons who have incomes of $400 million per annum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not tragic, but tyrannical. And will you please demonstrate how believing (a) that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, and (b) a 99% tax rate is oppressive, makes one a Republican.

Clearly that you agreed wtih Bush vs. Gore, which ended the recount, disenfranchising plenty of voters, 3 days before a non-binding deadline makes you be a Republican.

[Emsworth]

Clearly that you agreed wtih Bush vs. Gore, which ended the recount, disenfranchising plenty of voters, 3 days before a non-binding deadline makes you be a Republican.

(A) Arguing with you seems rather pointless, but the federal safe harbor date was a binding deadline under state law, as the Florida Supreme Court admitted.
(B) Bush v. Gore ended the recount one day before the deadline, not three.
(C) The recount was unconstitutional, and violated the equal protection clause.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly that you agreed wtih Bush vs. Gore, which ended the recount, disenfranchising plenty of voters, 3 days before a non-binding deadline makes you be a Republican.

(A) Arguing with you seems rather pointless, but the federal safe harbor date was a binding deadline under state law, as the Florida Supreme Court admitted.
(B) Bush v. Gore ended the recount one day before the deadline, not three.
(C) The recount was unconstitutional, and violated the equal protection clause.

A. The FL Court was just trying to be nice and make the deadline
B. December 9th was THREE DAYS before December 12th. See here.
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/sororneja/theissues.htm
C. Not counting people's votes and disenfranchising them violated the equal protection clause.

It's clear from your continued refusal to budge on the issue even though you are wrong, that you are not a Democrat.

[Emsworth]

A. The FL Court was just trying to be nice and make the deadline

... which was binding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the result of an injunction, not Bush v. Gore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, their votes were originally counted by appropriate equal standards (the machines, etc., were obviously equal). The hand recount was unequal.

[opebo]

jfern is right, emsworth is much closer to a Republican than a Democrat.  Possibly at best he could be considered a libertarian.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A. The FL Court was just trying to be nice and make the deadline

... which was binding.

It clearly was not, as Hawaii had electors appointed January 4th, 1961, and the 1876 election dragged on for 4 months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the result of an injunction, not Bush v. Gore.

[/quote]
The SCOTUS ended the recount December 9th as part of their Bush vs. Gore case. Do you dispute that? If not, you are just doing some stupid spin. I'm smart enough to figure out that they ended the recount before your sacred deadline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, their votes were originally counted by appropriate equal standards (the machines, etc., were obviously equal). The hand recount was unequal.
[/quote]

The machines were NOT equal. Poor Democratic minority areas tended to have unreliable punchcard machines that didn't have controls on to warn that a vote would be invalid. They also tended to have too few machines. Rich Republican white areas had the far more reliable optical voting machines. Just use a #2 pencil, and you get very low spoilage rates. The fact that you support this disenfranchisement says volumes about how much a Democrat you are. This isn't to mention other problems with the FL 2000 election: Poor ballot design in Palm Beach and Duval counties, various illegal absentee ballots, and of course the scrub list, which denied people the right to vote for crimes supposedly commited in 2006. Illegal use of a time machine, no doubt.