What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 01:07:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?
#1
over 60%
 
#2
55%-60%
 
#3
50%-55%
 
#4
45%-50%
 
#5
40%-45%
 
#6
35%-40%
 
#7
30%35%
 
#8
less than 30%
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate?  (Read 5073 times)
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« on: August 01, 2008, 02:07:26 AM »

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2008, 02:32:17 AM »

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.
Why? Because you say so.

No, because if you raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations all they do is pass the extra costs on to me and you. And no individual, no matter how much they make should EVER give more then half of what they make to the government, it's not morally, ethically or constitutionally right.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2008, 02:38:25 AM »

...no individual, no matter how much they make should EVER give more then half of what they make to the government, it's not morally, ethically or constitutionally right.
I wonder how some of the people in this thread would feel about being made to give up half of their house or belongings to strangers. For the greater good of course.

Actually, I was reading about this new home mortgage bailout plan and according to the paper, under a govt backed mortgage, if you sell your house before 5 years 50% of the home value goes to Uncle Sam. So, we are well on our way to the "greater good".
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2008, 02:42:12 AM »

...no individual, no matter how much they make should EVER give more then half of what they make to the government, it's not morally, ethically or constitutionally right.
I wonder how some of the people in this thread would feel about being made to give up, say, half of their house for strangers. For the greater good of course.
See this is where it gets very, very stupid with tax arguments. Everybody also looks out for their self interests in the end and if that is true why the hell do conservatives get so pissed off at the rich being taxed more than 50% if it benefits the bottom 30% of society? They still have a good life, with plentiful amounts of money and they are contributing to society.

Yeah, that's nice an all until the government starts telling YOU have a good enough life and can sacrifice some more. It's the principle of the matter that counts.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2008, 09:44:23 AM »

However, someone making $100,000,000 pays $79,838,000 in taxes (79.8%). The tax rate gets ever higher.

Indirect tax on the poor. No free person should EVER pay more then 45% of their income in taxes.
Why? Because you say so.

No, because if you raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations all they do is pass the extra costs on to me and you.

And isn't that a dead giveaway that what they have that is valuable is not money but POWER?  In other words 'you can't touch them'?  At least under the current system where they control that which matters.
 

What possible system could you recommend where someone on top doesn't have power? Roll Eyes One has never existed in the existence of humanity.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2008, 12:11:04 PM »

Kudos to you Fezzy.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2008, 10:48:35 AM »

More than 76 percent of households carry debt. Of that, according to the US census on average people carry $8,000 in credit card debt alone (actual number is much higher). Again, if people have more TVs or other non-necessities they are buying them almost entirely on borrowed (non-existent) money. Although a lot of that is actually being spent on necessities like health-care or college tuition.

Where do they learn their spending habits from? People just follow their leaders.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.