What should our tax brackets be?

[barfbag]

income < $15,000   10%
income < $25,000   15%
income < $85,000   25%
income > $85,000   28.75%

Repeal the death tax.
Repeal car taxes.
Repeal marriage tax for couples making less than $400,000.
Repeal tax breaks for those making over $400,000.
No national sales tax.
No tax increases for government services.
Reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Double taxation on stock dividends is unconstitutional.
Keep spending under control in order to avoid higher taxes.
Tax increases hurts job creation by taking money away from job creators.



With all of the tax breaks, tax credits, and loopholes, it's not like people can't figure out how to avoid paying taxes anyway. Lower income taxes help the average American and it's important not to let our brackets increase. When people have more money to put into the economy, everyone benefits. Tax breaks should be removed for top income earners. Spending must decline in order to keep within the budget. The car tax and death tax should be eliminated all together. Married couples making less than $400,000 shouldn't have to pay a marriage penalty tax. Taxes should also be lowered on dividends and capital gains. Double taxation on stock dividends is unconstitutional. If we get rid of earmarks and pork, then these tax brackets should spur the economy enough so that more people are paying taxes and we'll be able to pay off deficits at the same time as providing services.

[barfbag]

0% on everything below the poverty line.

50% on everything about $250,000 or so.

Other numbers in between. 100% estate tax on everything above $1 million or $5 million or something like that. Capital gains, etc. treated the same as income.

No we're already taxed too much.

[barfbag]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit. We have the highest corporate tax in the world which I don't believe was in my original post, but in my jobs creation thread I suggest we cut it in half to bring back jobs from overseas. Congress needs to stop spending our social security and Medicare money. A lot of our budget is going towards earmarks and projects known as bribes and thank you gifts for voting for those in office.

[barfbag]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

Our spending is ridiculous. Dodd-Frank found a way to include funding to study the eating patterns of snails and wool studies. Obama's bribery which he referred to as stimulus included $150,000,000 in honey bee insurance. You're telling me we don't live above our means in this country? Our debt is suffering because people can't be happy with what they have.

[barfbag]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

I'm talking about our spending and debt of more than a few trillion dollars.

[barfbag]

Top marginal tax rates during the Kennedy Administration were 65%. This was considered a tax "cut" because the previous top marginal tax rate was 91%. So I think that kind of disproves your point barfbag, especially considering the economic prosperity of the 1950s occurred during a time when the top marginal tax rates were in the 80-90% range.

Also, I think people give way too much bad credit to earmarks. Some of course are essentially a waste of appropriations, but this one might actually be legitimate. Especially considering beekeepers around the country are attempting to cope with CCD (colony-collapse disorder).

EDIT: I researched "Honeybee Insurance" and came up with an LA times article indicating that only a small amount of the $150,000,000 was directed towards honeybees; it was actually a part of a larger package for disaster insurance for all livestock, including cattle, pigs, sheep, and bees. Also, it merely funds a program created earlier by congress.

EVEN THEN, it was 150 million out of a 760 billion dollar stimulus. That comes out to about .2% of the total spending in the bill. It is less than .1% of the entire deficit.

Bottom line: there will always be "earmarks". Remember earmarks to a Virginia Republican or California Democrat is bacon to a North Dakota or Texas rancher. That's just the way government works.

In the meantime, there are those multi-billion dollar oil subsidies, and the tax breaks for those with private jets/yachts. I agree with you that those could use a little bit of austerity.

It's a shame what taxes used to be. We've come a long ways, but still have some work to do. Government should change but hasn't as promised by Obama in 2008.

[barfbag]

The last time top marginal taxes have been this low was during the Roaring '20s, and we all know where that led us.
Seriously though, top marginal taxes during the '50s were at 90%. And yet this is perhaps the single greatest time of American prosperity ever. This was when the American Dream became real for most Americans.

And I will ask you a question: when was the last time significant change has come to Washington, in ANY presidency?

They went up when the Bush tax cuts expired.

[barfbag]

Our spending is ridiculous. Dodd-Frank found a way to include funding to study the eating patterns of snails and wool studies. Obama's bribery which he referred to as stimulus included $150,000,000 in honey bee insurance. You're telling me we don't live above our means in this country? Our debt is suffering because people can't be happy with what they have.

Our spending is inadequate.  We don't 'live above our means', our rich live upon our means.  Eliminate their golden toilet bowls and double spending.

Class envy ^^

We can't eliminate all toilet bowls. Can you imagine how uncomfortable that would be? I mean think about it. Now imagine a chocolate hotdog coming out of your ass and there's nowhere to sit! It would be awful. We could do one of two things.

1. become like prairie dogs and go into holes in the ground
2. sit on window sills

Sitting on window sills would be dangerous though because people could fall out. This would highly likely result in being covered in gross matter. Another problem would be the unpleasantness of walking or driving through residential areas with people's asses hanging out of the windows. The prairie dog trick would work as long as we kept toilet paper. Toilet paper is one freedom we environmentalists must hold sacred. No one wants to have to wipe with leaves. This could lead to infections and then we'd need to use some Obamacare.

[barfbag]

I'd prefer letting people choose their tax bracket.

Democrats wouldn't get to eat and then we wouldn't have anymore Democrats.

[barfbag]

The last time top marginal taxes have been this low was during the Roaring '20s, and we all know where that led us.
Seriously though, top marginal taxes during the '50s were at 90%. And yet this is perhaps the single greatest time of American prosperity ever. This was when the American Dream became real for most Americans.

And I will ask you a question: when was the last time significant change has come to Washington, in ANY presidency?

They went up when the Bush tax cuts expired.

Tax cuts went up for the top .8% (over $400,000) when their tax cuts expired. They went up about 5%. STILL lower than Reagan era levels.

Also, Oldiesfreak, why do you think taxes should be no higher than 20%? Was that number arbitrary?

The top tax bracket was 28% when Reagan left office. It's now over 35% I believe.

[barfbag]

My mistake (though the tax rates on capital gains was higher then I believe, as were estate taxes.)

Taxes in general were higher, but not income taxes. The double taxation on stock dividends needs to go though due to constitutionality.

[barfbag]

A little bit of topic, but what do people think about having the child tax credit only be in effect for the first three or so children?

I'd say 4 children. Kids can be expensive with their $100 a week allowances.

[barfbag]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

Spending.

Do you mean raw spending or as a percentage of GDP? The former is utterly meaningless.

Spending should be held to GDP per capita.

[barfbag]

We should limit spending to x amount per person. x= the cost of living per individual. If all people were averaged out by survival expenses, then we would spend that much per person and no more. This doesn't mean we have to spend this much because not everyone needs to have government assistance. The rest could be spent on paying off our national debt.

[barfbag]

It's awesome that you agree with 25% as a high tax bracket. What do you think of other taxes such as marriage, death, and child tax credits? Would you consider being a Republican?

[barfbag]

Is there any noise to limit the child tax credit in Washington? I imagine some Republicans might oppose it because of the family, but I'm not sure.

What would be the arguments against it?

Arguments against it would be that parents get about $1,600 for four kids and that's enough aside from their incomes. Another point which could be made is that if families receive WIC, food stamps, or unemployment benefits, then they shouldn't receive the child tax credit. I support the child tax credit up to 4 children under the age of 18 for families making less than $400,000.

[barfbag]

0%: $0 - $200,000
40%: $200,000


Maybe not exactly those numbers, but something along those lines.

This could help people, but also hurt those who use their income to hire workers which would cost jobs.

[barfbag]

Tariffs on imported goods would be a better way to help with spending and our debt as opposed to higher taxes.

[barfbag]

How do people feel about the fair tax or a flat tax rate? In exchange we could pay for government services with user fees such as toll roads, tariffs, raising the price of stamps, and other things.

[barfbag]

If we all paid 15%?

[barfbag]

The only way I'd support progressive taxation is if we eliminated the corporate tax.