Higher Taxes for the Middle Class

[mtraininjax]

So the issue becomes how best to structure those tax rises.  Seems to me placing the burden on a middle-class that is already struggling instead of on the rich who already have more than they know what to do with isn't exactly the best way to go.

There are zillion studies that show that you cannot fix all the revenue issues in the USA with taxing the 1% at a 39% rate instead of 36% rate. I do like the idea of the 15% across the board or consumption tax on everything and anything, so our gas taxes would fall from 18% now to 15%, and capital gains would stay at 15% instead of what the Dems are crying about at 20 or 25%. This would be a true payment by all for anything consumed, rather than trying to penalize those who use the brain matter between their ears to build a better life.

But look at the example, someone who makes 1 million dollars pays $150,000 on their income, someone in middle class who makes $75,000 would pay $11,250 on their income. So with this simple math, where again does the middle class pay far more in tax in the proposed flat tax solution than say the wealthy? Take the number down to the Obama number of $250,000 for a married couple, they still pay $37,500 or more than 300% of that which the middle class earner in this example would pay. There would have to be a flat tax on all income, to coincide with the consumption tax.

[finehoe]

There are zillion studies that show that you cannot fix all the revenue issues in the USA with taxing the 1% at a 39% rate instead of 36% rate.

Perhaps you can give us the links to a few of them.

[fsquid]

no need for studies, the IRS let's you see the real data.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

[finehoe]

There are zillion studies that show that you cannot fix all the revenue issues in the USA with taxing the 1% at a 39% rate instead of 36% rate.

no need for studies, the IRS let's you see the real data.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

There's a lot of links there.  I presume you're pointing out the ones that show when the top tax rate was 39% during the 90's the budget was balanced.

[fsquid]

I'm just pointing out to you that you can get all the information your heart desires from there.  What you want to do with it is your business.

[Anti redneck]

Why don't we just cut to the chase and eliminate all taxes on income, regardless of source, after $200,000.  This should be indexed to inflation, so that as more of the middle class reaches that level, they will not reach the tax free zone. 

Think of how many jobs would be created with all that extra money in the hands of the job creators.

Absolutely none!

The rich might be greedy, but they're definitely NOT lazy! They'll just do all the work themselves. That or just hire some illegals and pay them less than minimum wage.

[carpnter]

There are zillion studies that show that you cannot fix all the revenue issues in the USA with taxing the 1% at a 39% rate instead of 36% rate.

no need for studies, the IRS let's you see the real data.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

There's a lot of links there.  I presume you're pointing out the ones that show when the top tax rate was 39% during the 90's the budget was balanced.

The budget was never balanced in the 90's, the surplus was an accounting gimmick, and the tax rate had little to do with it even if it were balanced.  The dot com industry had just started booming and its bubble had not yet popped.

[stephendare]

There are zillion studies that show that you cannot fix all the revenue issues in the USA with taxing the 1% at a 39% rate instead of 36% rate.

no need for studies, the IRS let's you see the real data.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

There's a lot of links there.  I presume you're pointing out the ones that show when the top tax rate was 39% during the 90's the budget was balanced.

The budget was never balanced in the 90's, the surplus was an accounting gimmick, and the tax rate had little to do with it even if it were balanced.  The dot com industry had just started booming and its bubble had not yet popped.

you mean the clinton era prosperity was based on lies and videotape and the Republicans still started two wars, cut the tax rates and destabilized the controls on risk based banking?

Doesn't make the Bush era hijinks sound very smart if what you are saying is true, carpnter

Makes you wonder what these idiots would do if they were able to replace Obama.

[jaxnative]

Carpnter, you are correct about the budget suprlus myth.  Two good articles:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://mises.org/daily/542

[mtraininjax]

Makes you wonder what these idiots would do if they were able to replace Obama.

When its the idiots in power now that are providing such phenomenal growth! LOL!!!!

[finehoe]

Carpnter, you are correct about the budget suprlus myth.  Two good articles:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://mises.org/daily/542

So you're saying the Bush tax cuts which were justified by saying the surplus demonstrated the government was taking in too much money was just another Republican lie?

[finehoe]

When its the idiots in power now that are providing such phenomenal growth! LOL!!!!

You do realize, of course, that slow growth is a global phenomenon: http://www.businessinsider.com/world-bank-world-economy-2012-6#the-euro-crisis-is-crushing-sentiment-1

Who knew Obama was so powerful that he can control the whole world's economy?

[mtraininjax]

You do realize, of course, that slow growth is a global phenomenon:

Whoa, I had no idea that other countries were slowing down. Spain is in denial, unemployment is 25% and the banks are loath to write down any bad loans, no wonder their interest rates are through the roof on their own debt, no one believes they believe their own BS.

China is slowing down and they claim that they are propping up the slow down, again, more denial. Yet everything appears rosy here in the United States, again the Obama proponents are again in denial, as usual.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Track the Gross Domestic Production during Obama's tenure as President, please try and stick to our current President, not one we had 25 years ago, who, while amusing, just does not pass the Obama Mustard. As you can see from the simple BAR charts, the very best that Obama has seen in his tenure, so far, was in 2010, when he had  3 good quarters of 3.8%, 3.9% and 3.8% in growth, then we have seen him slide back down to woeful growth in 2011, with numbers of 0.4%, 1.3%, and 1.8%.  His last quarter was revised at 1.9% growth, with the European crisis hitting the papers at full steam. So that was actually one of his better quarters.

All this while the Fed is stating that growth expectations are being revised, downward to between 1.9 and 2.4% for the REST of 2012. Not looking good for a re-election campaign when most of your presidential term has been mired in poor economic activity.

So now, do we all think the Harvard Grad who has a Law Degree is better suited to tackle economic issues than the Harvard grad who actually has a business degree? Those living in denial, no need to answer....

[finehoe]

So now, do we all think the Harvard Grad who has a Law Degree is better suited to tackle economic issues than the Harvard grad who actually has a business degree?

If only it was that simple.

[ChriswUfGator]

Dubbya had a business degree from Harvard. We all see how that turned out.