I didn't say they were popular. The public hated it. Your point was that tax cuts created growth in the 60s and 80s. And I pointed to times were tax cuts or increases had the opposite effect.
It's almost like there's many other things going on with the economy than just taxes.
Clinton raised income taxes while cutting capital gains taxes. The economy didn't really start to take off until after the Republicans took over the House, and put pressure on cutting spending.
What's it like to live in a world where everything good is from Republicans and everything bad is from Democrats?
The concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
The concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
It is a radical change but I think it generates more income than jacking the income tax because the ultra rich avoid income
The government knows where to find payroll tax payers and is likely to keep lowering who is rich because we no longer consider cutting spending.
State and local income taxes would need to align
I'm just a contractor
Simplicity is generally a good concept. Complexity is generally a way to hide things
A flat is more radical than a 90% rate to a lot of folks I'm sure
This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.
The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too
I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople
Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess
I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.
TL/DR
So I’m going to start with your framing to make a larger point. The country survived the rates and only exploded with tax cuts. But I’m pretty sure the countries best economic year under Reagan came after a massive tax hike. And I’m not saying that’s the reason why, I’m saying you can always come up with reasons why this worked or that didn’t work.
Economy explodes under Clinton, no doesn’t count. Craters under Bush, noooo doesn’t count. Explodes under Reagan, see tax cuts work. But it was after a tax hike, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOESNT COUNT. And, obviously, everybody does it.
This will sound familiar but I want the 70% top tax rate because I think we’ve got to do something. 40% of the country can’t survive a $400 emergency. It’s not even that tax cuts can’t theoretically work, it’s that I don’t trust the people who will get that money and I have found people that I do trust.
You can actually measure these things. There's an entire body of science you can pretend doesn't exist but you still can't defy it's basic principles.
You can measure them and the measurements are completely biased. That’s why one presidential candidate will put out an economic plan and a bunch of economists will say it’s amazing and a bunch of economists will say it’s terrible. Then the other candidate puts out a plan and the economists flip sides. It’s a pseudo science at best.
The concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
Yeah I posted the chart a little while ago. But when you factor in State and local and payroll taxes. The top 5% wage earners earn about 21% of the income and pay about 23% of the taxes. It's like that throughout all of the income brackets.
If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax. Which is distorted like you said, mostly because the SS part of payroll taxes ends at $132k in income on capital gains and dividends aren't taxed for payroll.
So when you look at the complete picture, we have roughly a flat tax. Or it's a lot closer to flat than what is perceived.
Cue Bob destroying his keyboard in anger about facts.
I didn't say they were popular. The public hated it. Your point was that tax cuts created growth in the 60s and 80s. And I pointed to times were tax cuts or increases had the opposite effect.
It's almost like there's many other things going on with the economy than just taxes.
Clinton raised income taxes while cutting capital gains taxes. The economy didn't really start to take off until after the Republicans took over the House, and put pressure on cutting spending.
What's it like to live in a world where everything good is from Republicans and everything bad is from Democrats?
What's it like to live in a world where you're forced to fuck strawman ass because you're too stupid to respond to what people actually say. I thought you said you like "facts" Hondo. I never claimed that everything good is from Republicans but you're stupid and lightweight Kunt so that what you claim I said in order to give yourself something to say because you sure as fuck can't address what I actually said.
Comments
The government knows where to find payroll tax payers and is likely to keep lowering who is rich because we no longer consider cutting spending.
State and local income taxes would need to align
I'm just a contractor
Simplicity is generally a good concept. Complexity is generally a way to hide things
A flat is more radical than a 90% rate to a lot of folks I'm sure
If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax. Which is distorted like you said, mostly because the SS part of payroll taxes ends at $132k in income on capital gains and dividends aren't taxed for payroll.
So when you look at the complete picture, we have roughly a flat tax. Or it's a lot closer to flat than what is perceived.
Cue Bob destroying his keyboard in anger about facts.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
Shut up and let the adults talk.
You seem upset.