Iremon; well said. But don't you think it's time to take these power-tools for our voie to a new level? One where I voice resonates?
Well each state could set their own system. Under my concept collection of Social Security/Medicare as it now exist would end and these programs would be funded by the federal governments general fund. States then could decide the taxation of individuals-employers and so on. The federal government would collect NO TAXES other than those from the states.
damn. the value of checking what you type before posting...my apologies Iriemon. Re-phrased; take the I out and replace with 'OUR voice resonates. Meaning: now, more than any time in this history of human kind, the masses of today have a free for the taking platform (the Big www) in which our voice can effect the direction in which we are led. The effect of this can be seen everywhere; the Arab Spring, MoveOn.org, republican & democratic unity are just a few groups who have taken advantage of this. However, I have yet to find a singular place where our voice can gain unity en-masse, not polarized division camps. This place is called Political Forum; a place for all voices to congregate. So it seems logical to me then, it sits ripe for incorporating a consensus-building mechanism which is why I graviated toward the opinion poll section. Do any of the polls taken here move beyond a mere poll taking feature and if not, why? Is this a new site, are the folks here not interestd in such?
BTW, there are half a dozen ways to avoid paying tax on income earned offshore, especially if you have corporate shells involved. The naivete of that sentence only highlights the naivete of the previous one.
No I disagree,it does matter,why should you be taxed at a higher rate just because you develop more income,we are all equal and should be taxed at the same rate,thats why congress for decades have made loopholes to compensate for this travesty. Thats why I personally scoff at the current POTUS (oe any of his parrots) when they use the term..." pay their fair share" If we were all paying our fair share and the 2 branches of the Govt were spending within our nations means we wouldnt be in the shape we are all in.When nearly 50% of the current population pays no,none NADA income tax how are we suppose to fix this economy. You want to level the playing field,or better yet awaken the population?eliminate payroll deductions for just ONE year,at the end of that fiscal year the Govt sends each and every US citizen a "bill" for "services rendered on their behalf by the US govt",you want action,that will get you action
True reality as evidenced in the capital gains revenue history. Why do we need higher rates when historically they have at the least slowed revenue growth and as demonstrated bring in lower revenues? And during those six years we came out of a bubble and recession without it being too devastating because of the policies enacted and then had 52 months of full employment, unemployment not going over 6.5% and then just for one month and soaring tax revenues and a declining deficit down to $161B. So how did the Democrats do when they took control? Where did unemployment head to, 10%+, where did it stay for almost 3 years, over 9%, where is it still after 4 years, almost 8%, what has happened to labor participation, sinking which is the only reason the U3 is below 10%. what happened to the deficit? $161B to $1,400B and over $1,100B ever since. What has happened to GDP, barely above water and falling again. So what exactly are you bragging about and why do you want a continuation of the policies that have kept us from going into a full recovery and putting people back to work?
Try without the hyperbole. Revenue nonetheless and a reflection of the economy. Try just using the CBO tables. You'll see what is going on. Inflation was pretty much nill during that period and the tax revenues increased no matter how you want to look at it. And revenue growth during the Clinton years did not reach it's highest until AFTER that tax rate cuts he was forced to sign. It was a fact and drove the market down and put lots of people out of work. There's not a lot of capital gains in the housing market, most sales are exempt. And Obama was hired to fix it. He failed, his policies failed and he and they continue to fail.
Current market based metrics indicate that even tax preference isn't doing what it was believed it should be doing; except for record profits for the wealthiest.
Taxes have been progressive since the very first Federal Tax was created, by Alexander Hamilton, Treas-Sec under George Washington.
Are you for real? Small business produces 60% of the GDP and government yet always gets the short end of the stick. Deregulation may have enriched those who don't already need it, but didn't do much for the rest of us. Also King Bush the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) #2 was running up record deficits during both his terms.
The poll does not offer a contrary side, as higher tax rates lead to higher revenues. If austerity is meant to be the contrary, then higher revenues stimulates the economy, because it creates wealth while austerity keeps wealth in the hands of those who already have money. Employers benefit from austerity because they are rich, while employees benefit from increasing tax revenue because that creates more opportunities since the wealth will be spread out instead of concentrated.
Yes, interesting proposition & yes, there would have to be a proportioned amount of Fed tax to assist the states inflicted by their specific maladies. This solution has merit on another level; by diminishing gov on federal level would also dimish the strangelhold wall street has on our democracy.
Historically that is not the case as I demonstrated with the historical capital gains revenues. Look at what is happening in France as they try to increase tax rates, California too.
Why do we not have an economic boom now that the wealthiest are "earning" record profits and receiving tax incentives?
Historically, your cap gains revenue charts have proved how tax revenues have been cut in half for equivalent levels of cap gains since 1996. That's at least $30 billion in giveaways mostly to the richest. No wonder you like it. - - - Updated - - - Write your Tea Party of Grover reps and tell them to raise taxes on the rich and stop picking on the little guys.
That's at least $30 billion in giveaways mostly to the richest. No wonder you like it. [/QUOTE] Historically it shows that lower rates produce more economic activity and more tax revenue, SUBSTANTIALLY more tax revenues. So what do you want, higher tax rates so you can fell like you are screwing the wealthy of more tax revenues so we can get the deficit down?
Nonsense. Revenues are way down proportionate to realizations compared to 1996. The are half as much. Great for guys like Romney. Puts the Govt more in debt. - - - Updated - - - Good question.
SO WHAT? It created higher revenues because of increased economic activity do to the lower rates. So which is it, you want more revenue or do you believe as Obama does. GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. At least be honest and stop the phony arguments you are making.
Gibson is totally wrong, as the data proves. Does this look like a revenue increase to anyone? Year - Cap gain realizations - Cap gains tax rev. 1996 260,696 66,396 2009 263,460 36,686 Sure doesn't look like an increase in revenues to me. Maybe Gibson can come on board and explain it. As to Obama's statement, you left out this part: But Mr. Gibson had noted that higher rates yield less revenue. So the news anchor tried again: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up?" Mr. Obama responded that this "might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going." http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obama-and-gibson-capital-gains-tax-exchange Obama is right. Overall cap gains fluctuates greatly depending upon what the stock market does. But as the data I cited proves, for the same level of realizations, tax revenues are way down.
The most damaging fallacies are the ones that are not obvious, such as in Marbury v Madison, where the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. That is known as "begging the question," which does not have the meaning Diploma Dumboes give it, "which leads to another question." Instead, to truly educated people it means sneaking the conclusion in as part of the argument leading to that conclusion. "Begging (petitio)" here means "asking for something that is not yours, something that is assumed without proof. "Question (principium) means what the argument seeks to prove, as in quest. Another example would be "God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."
No he was correct. Your dishonesty in posting the revenues during the recession versus the boom proves how you can't make your case. And yes 2009 was higher than 1996. That is what is so hilarious about your attempt to misrepresent it, 2009 was a recession, a bad one and STILL revenues were higher at the lower rates than in 1996 during a boom at the highest rates. What were revenues in 2007? Because of the dishonesty of your post. He spoke his motivations quite clearly, whether the rate hike would increase or decrease didn't matter. And while he and you have no data to back up a claim that the higher rates will produce higher revenue Gibson had his data in order. Your merely declaring him wrong does not prove it so. Quite self serving though. ROFL 50 years of history is not a fluctuation. The history is quite clear, at higher rates we collect less revenue and lower rates economic activity increases and we collect more revenue. The rates effect the market not the other way around. Specious, the realizations increase at the lower rates and we collect more revenue overall. So which is it, you want higher rates to squeeze the most successful people or higher revenues to pay down the deficit.
I just proved what he said was false, using the same table you've cited numerous time. The realizations were about the same in 2009 as 1996. Revenues were half. Another tax giveaway to the uber rich. LOL. It's always the biggest liars on the board usually accusing others of dishonesty. He clarified that Gibson's point was wrong. As to fairness, Obama is 100% right. It's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) a guy like Romney is paying a lower tax rate than a typical median income level family. It's not clear at all. I just provide you were wrong. False, as I've proved. False dichotomy, like your OP.
