The Tax Thread
Page 1 of 20 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 252

Thread: The Tax Thread

  1. #1
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,099

    The Tax Thread

    This didn't seem to fit well in any of the other threads, so I figured I figured I'd make a new one. Not sure how much weight I give this pollster, but the numbers do surprise me, and I think it's a discussion worth having.

    Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

    Q: Currently the top tax rate is 37%. Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?

    GOP: 45% support (55% oppose)
    Dem: 71% support (29% oppose)
    Ind: 60% support (40% oppose)

    Total: 59% support (41% oppose)

  2. Advertisement
  3. #2

    Re: The Tax Thread

    I think most who oppose this do so for one (or both) of two reasons:
    - the principle of voting to take vastly more money from someone else simply because they have more, and
    - the fact that more revenue is not really what's needed, unless we get serious about government spending and reducing the debt. At this point it's obvious - give congress more money and they'll simply spend more, like giving a drunk more alcohol.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  4. #3
    BamaNation Hall of Fame AlexanderFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    5,373

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    I think most who oppose this do so for one (or both) of two reasons:
    - the principle of voting to take vastly more money from someone else simply because they have more, and
    - the fact that more revenue is not really what's needed, unless we get serious about government spending and reducing the debt. At this point it's obvious - give congress more money and they'll simply spend more, like giving a drunk more alcohol.
    At this point we are just electing the same people and hoping things change. There's a word for that I believe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "It's not luck, it's random bursts of talent." - Gage Robinson

  5. #4
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 92tide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    East Point, Ga, USA
    Posts
    34,607

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    I think most who oppose this do so for one (or both) of two reasons:
    - the principle of voting to take vastly more money from someone else simply because they have more, and
    - the fact that more revenue is not really what's needed, unless we get serious about government spending and reducing the debt. At this point it's obvious - give congress more money and they'll simply spend more, like giving a drunk more alcohol.
    progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

    - George Orwell

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they donít have to worry about the answers.

    ó Thomas Pynchon

  6. #5

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.
    Oh, I agree - we've been using a progressive system basically since the beginning of income tax here in the US. I've no problem with that, but I think some who oppose this feel as if that high of a percentage is unfair, regardless of the astronomical income level that's required to reach it or the fact that they will never be affected by it.

    I'm more in the second camp - unless / until we make changes to how congress spends money, I'd rather starve the beast than find ways to feed it more money to waste.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  7. #6
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bamaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Jacksonville, Md USA
    Posts
    20,687

    Re: The Tax Thread

    I'm not sure about 70% but 39% is even more ridiculous especially considering the debt that we are accumulating.

  8. #7
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,099
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.
    At minimum, I think increasing the number and range of tax brackets would be a positive step. We used to have more, and the system used to be far more progressive. Right now, the upper middle class is lumped into the same bracket as billionaires, and that's a relatively recent change. One that has correlated with a (IMO) damaging wealth redistribution.

    The 70% tax bracket in 1965 started at $200k. That's $1.5 million in today's dollars.


  9. #8
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 92tide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    East Point, Ga, USA
    Posts
    34,607

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Oh, I agree - we've been using a progressive system basically since the beginning of income tax here in the US. I've no problem with that, but I think some who oppose this feel as if that high of a percentage is unfair, regardless of the astronomical income level that's required to reach it or the fact that they will never be affected by it.

    I'm more in the second camp - unless / until we make changes to how congress spends money, I'd rather starve the beast than find ways to feed it more money to waste.
    i tend to think (or like to think in my fairy tale world) that the spending and funding can be simultaneously dealt with. i am not a fan of starve the best because it is indiscriminate. there is a ton of wasteful spending in government, but there is also a ton of good spending in government.
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

    - George Orwell

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they donít have to worry about the answers.

    ó Thomas Pynchon

  10. #9
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,217

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    progressive taxation is not a radical concept and i think framing it as taking more money from someone else simply because they have more is an oversimplification. whether 70% (or any other percent) is too much or too little, i have no idea, but i think it is worthy of discussion.
    It sort of comes down to the fact that if we as a country desire to be a global power by spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. People who have wealth have to pay taxes to support it. We can't say spend a trillion to upgrade our nuclear
    weapons and continue to borrow from our adversaries to pay for it.

    What I believe has been done with the recent tax gift to the wealthy is to institute a poison pill against the passage of a progressive tax plan that would finance reasonable domestic programs and a reasonable defense budget.

    As we continue to transfer wealth to the 1% while at the same time reducing their tax rate the tax burden will by definition be increasingly born by the working middle class.

    How does any of this come to a good end when average voter can in no way imagine the wealth and income generated by those who possess the capital in our society?

  11. #10
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 92tide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    East Point, Ga, USA
    Posts
    34,607

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by UAH View Post
    It sort of comes down to the fact that if we as a country desire to be a global power by spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. People who have wealth have to pay taxes to support it. We can't say spend a trillion to upgrade our nuclear
    weapons and continue to borrow from our adversaries to pay for it.

    What I believe has been done with the recent tax gift to the wealthy is to institute a poison pill against the passage of a progressive tax plan that would finance reasonable domestic programs and a reasonable defense budget.

    As we continue to transfer wealth to the 1% while at the same time reducing their tax rate the tax burden will by definition be increasingly born by the working middle class.

    How does any of this come to a good end when average voter can in no way imagine the wealth and income generated by those who possess the capital in our society?
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

    - George Orwell

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they donít have to worry about the answers.

    ó Thomas Pynchon

  12. #11
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,099
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Oh, I agree - we've been using a progressive system basically since the beginning of income tax here in the US. I've no problem with that, but I think some who oppose this feel as if that high of a percentage is unfair, regardless of the astronomical income level that's required to reach it or the fact that they will never be affected by it.

    I'm more in the second camp - unless / until we make changes to how congress spends money, I'd rather starve the beast than find ways to feed it more money to waste.
    I absolutely agree that spending and income are both variables in this equation, and you can't ignore either one if you actually want to solve it.

    My issue with the starve the beast solution is that it only hurts poor people. Want to control spending by taking away healthcare? Well, the rich will just pay for the private hospitals the rest of us can't afford. Want to stop funding education? Public schools deteriorate and the rich send their kids to private prep schools. Want to stop funding police forces? The poor communities experience a rise in crime while the rich hire private security. On and on, down the line. Ultimately, the wealth gap just gets wider. A poor person gets sick, and they can't afford care. Maybe they can't work. Maybe they have to conscript their children to help, who no longer have time to study and lose access to the most powerful socioeconomic ladder we have. But the rich don't experience any of these cascading events, and over time, wealth continues to get consolidated at the top.

    I saw this recently with a friend of a friend who happens to be a very wealthy investor. Someone mentioned the 3+hr waits at airports during this shutdown, the various security lapses due to unpaid TSA agents, and he just literally dismissed it all with an uncaring wave of his hand. Because he owns a private jet and doesn't have to see any of those issues. The problems and inconveniences of normal people just stop mattering above a certain income level, and starving the beast will leave them untouched while hurting everyone else.

  13. #12
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bamaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Jacksonville, Md USA
    Posts
    20,687

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by 92tide View Post
    i tend to think (or like to think in my fairy tale world) that the spending and funding can be simultaneously dealt with. i am not a fan of starve the best because it is indiscriminate. there is a ton of wasteful spending in government, but there is also a ton of good spending in government.
    And if it worked at all we wouldn't be at 20 trillion and increasing by another trillion every year.

  14. #13
    FB|BB Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    12,060

    Re: The Tax Thread

    I could get behind something similar to this - at least be willing to listen - if and only if the middle class get substantial tax relief. That would be more in line with the original income tax.

    ETA: It would also help in moving the wealth back to the middle class.
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

[CLICK] GET BAMA Calendar