Posted on 03/09/2009 6:57:52 AM PDT by Brookhaven
Nothing personal was intended. I'm becomming frustrated though by the number of people I meet that complain and focus on why something won't work instead of focusing on what might work.
“A lower barrier point.”
Bluntly, I don’t think we could get the American public to support a lower barrier point at this time.
What would you make it? 40%? Obama ran on raising the federal income tax to 39.5% (almost 40%) and was elected president. That 39.5% doesn’t even include local and state taxes or SS taxes.
I agree 50% is an obscenely high number, but this is where we are at in history. We can’t correct everything overnight, and as much as I’d like to, we won’t be able to cut the tax rates in half overnight either.
50% is a number that will work today. It is a number we can get written into law. Then we can start working to lower that number to where it should be (which is way below 50%, imho.)
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Don’t fall into the trap that we have to go for the perfect solution now if it means we end up with nothing.
No worries.
It’s an honor chatting with ya, by the way.
Don't fall into the trap of platitudes either. Demand no higher than 18% The tax vampires will be horrified at the thought of getting weaned from the lifeblood of their fellow citizens and cries of necessary services, but then you grudgingly allow that you might let it go to 20%, etc. If you set the barrier too high, then A not many people will support you because it isn't their ox being gored (or being ungored) The parasites will cry out it's for the children no matter how much or how little, but you won't get much support of you set the limit to 50% and further the parasites will use that as a starting point for upward negotiations.
“Don’t fall into the trap of platitudes either. Demand no higher than 18% The tax vampires will be horrified at the thought of getting weaned from the lifeblood of their fellow citizens and cries of necessary services, but then you grudgingly allow that you might let it go to 20%, etc. “
I have been in the past (and continue to be) a strong supporter of the fair tax. I understand though, that it is such a radical departure from the current system that it will take a long time (as in decades) to win people over to the position. I am willing though, to work for decades to get this done.
Your 18% proposal is similar to the fair tax in one important aspect: it is such a radial departure from the current tax system that it would take a long time (as in decades) to win enough support to actually become law.
I believe the 50% proposal is a number we could get enacted into law THIS YEAR and have it apply to the 2009 tax year.
That’s what I mean by the perfect being the enemy of the good. We need something NOW, not 20 years from now.
Well I don't agree, but the idea is not totally without merit. Good luck with it.
And there goes states rights. Sorry, a cap on the federal level might be workable, but there’s no legitimate and fair way to incorporate state taxes as well.
“And there goes states rights. Sorry, a cap on the federal level might be workable, but there’s no legitimate and fair way to incorporate state taxes as well.”
Oh sure there is. Just think positive and put your mind to it. You’ll come up with it.
But philosophically it isn’t even right: why should the decisions within one’s state affect how much one pays in federal taxes?
I understand your intentions, which are good, and I’d be all for other means of publicizing the overall percent of income people are paying in taxes—add in local property, sales, all level of income, and various other fees and charges and it is astounding—but it’s not right for one’s federal obligations to be based on such a wide-ranging state and individually determined basis.
I understand your intentions, which are good, and I’d be all for other means of publicizing the overall percent of income people are paying in taxes—add in local property, sales, all level of income, and various other fees and charges and it is astounding—but it’s not right for one’s federal obligations to be based on such a wide-ranging state and individually determined basis.
Which is why I suggested in a reply that the "penalty" for going over 50% be prorated between the state and feds. If a state jacks up their income taxes, they risk getting penalized because they were responsible for a larger part of the total tax burden. Same with the feds.
I can see I'm going to have to rewrite this proposal. There is an answer to these problems, they just have to be worked out.
And I need all the help I can get. The objects here are good, but I need some solutions to those objections also.
This is a proposal to freeze runaway taxation in its tracks. Once we do that, we can start reducing taxation. But the freezing has to come first.
Again, I understand your intention, but 50% of unfair is still unfair. A hard cap has to be fed-only based. Getting a live, calculable and publicize-able total % on taxes paid is a good PR goal. Any state-level Pubbie could use it to tout the advantages of his state—or to shame his state into lowering their tax burden. If people really understood nearly how much they pay in taxes they would revolt—which can only be a good thing.
AM bump
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.