Posted on 09/17/2014 3:26:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
As Guy Benson reported earlier today, a new poll of likely voters conducted for Townhall by Gravis Marketing found that Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) was statistically tied with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) at 45 percent in the race for Lousiana's U.S. Senate seat.
That result is right in line with both the RealClearPolicits poll average of the race (Cassidy +1.3) and the HuffPost Pollster model (Cassidy +.5).
In addition to the top line result, however, Gravis also included a question, at the request of Townhall, that may provide Republicans a better way to answer Democratic questions about raising the minimum wage on the campaign trail.
Gravis asked, "Given the choice, would you rather see Congress: 1) raise the minimum wage, 2) cut the payroll tax for all working Americans, or 3) increase tax credits for some low-income Americans."
The results found a strong preference for cutting the payroll tax. "The majority of those polled; 50% believe that cutting the payroll tax for all working Americans would be a good start, 39% indicated that raising the minimum wage would be their choice, while only 9% believe increased entitlement spending by increasing tax credits for some low-income Americans would be smart. 2% were unsure," Gravis reported.
It is not hard to see why Americans would prefer a payroll tax cut to a minimum wage hike. A payroll tax cut, paid for by eliminating loopholes for the wealthy, would both increase take home pay for all working Americans and create new jobs by lowering the cost of employment.
Raising the minimum wage, however, would benefit only 4.3 percent of American workers, and, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and President Obama's choice to un the Federal Reserve, would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.
To the extent that the workers see little or no hope of getting one dime out of SocSec, it sure makes sense (and will guarantee that outcome).
You get less of what you tax.
If the government wants to pretend to care about jobs, they need to stop taxing wages.
But to do that they would probably need to limit their activities to what the constitution actually allows them to do.
What would happen if the federal minimum wage laws were repealed?
How about this
10% income tax on every dollar over 30K per person for the first 250K income. After 250K the rate goes to 12.5% until 1 million then 15% on all income OVER 1 million.
No deductions - including charitable organizations or for children or mortgage, no loopholes, no tax credits, no EIC, no alternative minimum tax, no joint returns
That would a household with two wage earners a 60K floor before paying any income tax.
It would simplify the tax code so that audits would be nearly eliminated.
It would mean that probably 3/4 of the IRS could be eliminated
Apply the same principal to business by charging a 5% income tax on all profit starting at 1 million
7.5% on profit from 1 million + 1 to 10 million and 10% on all profits over 10 million.
Eliminate all tax exempt status. Most current tax exempt organizations like churches would still effectively be tax exempt because they don’t turn a profit.
GE, GM and the big corporations would pay more tax but still save money because they’d be able to fire the army of tax attorneys and accountants they currently need to keep track of their taxes.
The IRS should not be a potential political weapon. Changing the tax laws would insure it could not be. By making tax compliance easier you make it so that people are more willing to pay the tax.
This is basically the system used by Hong Kong. In the 15 years we lived there we paid MORE than we would have in the US since we had a fairly high income but minded it less because it didn’t take 20 hours to fill out the forms.
What? Well, that wouldn’t put a single small family-owned business out of business! Obama won’t stand for it.
Nope, he sure wouldn’t
How about restoring We the People to Free Men. If D.C. followed the Constitution, this thread would be moot. Income tax, in ANY amount = slavery. Services are (should/must) to be paid by those that utilize the same (and no straw-men re: police/fire/etc....setting aside the bennies there-of for now)
Plus, if the Fed. Reserve charade is to continue, there is no need to tax ‘income’; print what’s needed as they do now. It’s all funny $$ to begin.
At the WORST, aside from the prebate, the Fair Tax is the best idea going...IMHO. Everyone ‘pays’ what they wish; We the People are ‘out of the loop’ (people -> biz -> State -> Fed), barter/trade/services increase and the iron fist of D.C. disappears.
The Libertarian proposal that they claim would allow for reducing the payroll tax needs some P.R. retooling.
They plan to LOWER FICA income dedicated to Social Security & fund that by eliminating and/or lowering certain tax deductions, but the increased revenue from the changes in tax deductions will do nothing for Social Security unless the law says it must.
UNLESS the increased revenue from the changes in tax deductions is dedicated under law to paying off IOUs the general treasury gave to Social Security, the plan will not work, nor can it be sold to the people. Without that dedicated application under law, the Social Security funds will be in even worse shape (getting less FICA revenue and not compensated for that loss) and the additional general revenue will just be spent on general expenditures.
Amateurs should not write tax law. You have several errors in your post.
B-b-but how are we going to pay for it?!!!
< /voice>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.