Posted on 04/18/2017 3:49:49 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
In an article headlined 'That GOP 'Middle Class' Tax Cut Might Be a Big Fat Trojan Horse For The Rich," a Huffington Post writer set out to attack Republican tax-cutting plans.
There's nothing new about decrying tax cuts as giveaways to the rich. Democrats spent years trashing President Bush's tax cuts on those grounds, and the first chance President Obama had, he raised the top tax rates.
But in making his case, Huffington Post senior White House correspondent S. V. Date inadvertently reveals a dirty secret about our current tax code.
Namely, despite endless claims that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, they actually pay more than their fair share — much more, in fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Oh my, yet another pronouncement from the left that is immediately proved to be self contradictory.
For starters, negative tax rates, the whole “credit” game should be eliminated. The freeloading deadbeats that make up the base of the democrat party should be paying THEIR fair share.
Yup - negative tax rates are ridiculous. I don’t have a problem with carry-forwards but no straight up refunds.
It is amazing that except for payroll taxes, roughly 90% of income taxes are paid by the top 20%. Nearly by default, any tax cut will go to the top 20%. Personally, as someone in the top 3% of incomes, I’d rather see corporate income tax go away and keep personal taxes the same or maybe even slightly higher on top levels of income brackets as what I might lose up front, I’d more than make up for in equity appreciation and GDP growth.
b & b
I started my own company and had the misfortune to have a banner first year.
I got CREAMED on taxes. Fortunately I knew it was coming and saved a good chunk of my income off to the side to pay Uncle Sugar.
The first 20K/year of income (or some number like that) should not be taxed at all. After that, everyone should pay the same income tax rate up to infinity. My guess is the rate would bounce around from 15-25% depending on the politics of the day). The people who make more money will necessarily be paying more taxes. The people who make less, will necessarily be paying less taxes. But, everyone would be paying the same rate and therefore everyone would be contributing equally. It’s so freakin easy.
We won’t have a fair tax system until everyone pays. The Earned Incme Tax Credit allows “the poor” (including illegals) to get payment from the taxpayers, another welfare hand out. Mexicans can have it sent to “nieces” and “nephews” in Mexico, who may be fictitious. EITC payments amount to hundreds of millions dollars in fraud every year and should be eliminated in any new tax bill.
Each year, our debt interest and deficit spending pile on more national debt. This is unsustainable. Congresses past and present, are responsible for creating our national debt. Reducing expenditures to reduce and eventually eliminate our national debt must be coupled to any tax reform IMHO. Keynesian economics have led us to financial instability and it's contributing to the demise of the nation. There is no free lunch!!
"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!" - Isaiah 5:21
Agree but offshoring, zero tariffs and "Free Trade" have decimated wealth creation and we run $800B/yr deficits in trade alone. American is being screwed form all sides while the globalists make a pile of cash.
WHY THE INCOME TAX SHOULD BE REPLACED
In early January 2009 president elect Barack Obama made the comment that part of what was wrong with America was that not everyone “had skin in the game”.
Of course he was pushing his socialist view that everyone would have to sacrifice for the greater good - that the wealthy would have to start doing “their fair share”.
After all - weren’t the people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder already sacrificing because they couldn’t afford to live like the wealthy?
His observation that everyone should have “skin in the game” was on target but as usual he had the cause and effect completely backwards.
One reason the federal government gets off lightly on extorting so much from the private sector and spending and wasting so much is that almost 50% of American households pay no income tax. latest estimates put the actual number at slightly less than 80 million households.
They don’t have any “skin in the game”
So they don’t have an investment in America or in the government.
So they really aren’t concerned that much about government spending or how much the government extorts from others.
If we had a minimum tax for everyone, or better yet a sales tax instead of an income tax, everyone would have “skin in the game”.
Instantly we would have another 80 million households suddenly become interested in how much the federal government spends, where it is spent, how much is scammed from the government and how much is wasted.
They would begin to pay attention to what their elected representatives are actually doing - or not doing with their money.
That’s probably the main reason why most senators and congressmen don’t want to change the tax system.
Trade deficits are irrelevant. They are irrelevant in real life and they are irrelevant to the thread.
An important point that neither side understands. Remember, it was Bush who bragged that he’d taken millions off the tax rolls.
The problem with comparing marginal tax rates in the 40s-60s vs today is back then you there were so many deductions and loopholes that the effective tax rate of the rich was in the low 20% - just like it is today. In other words, basically no one paid anything close to that. In fact the equiv of today’s millionaire was almost as likely to pay 0 income taxes as there was no AMT.
Hardly irrelevant - it means the tax base both for the profit of the manufacturer and for the labor (both payroll tax and income) is overseas and not in the US. Also means harder for the lower and middle class to have wages rise in the US.
I want a powerful economy when viewed in aggregate. I do not want to help special interests - i.e. low wage earners.
You really think all those manufacturing jobs were low age? Even if they were, how exactly does shipping all production and jobs overseas to allow the top 0.1%/MNCs in the US have a higher profit margin help the economy in aggregate or even the US Government? All it does is move the tax base (and hence, tax income) overseas and allow MNCs to destroy small and medium size firms in the US that operate in the US and pay a higher tax rate.
We all know what opinions are like, so here’s mine: First, clean up the language of the issue. The word “fair” is one that should not EVER be used regarding taxes unless everyone accepts MY opinion of what “fair” means. Next, everyone should pay THE SAME, from dollar one. 15% of all earned income no matter what. Then we add a national flag sales tax on everything starting at 1%. If we spend more than comes in it gets raised. That way when we vote we can hold politicians accountable for how much their spending is costing us. Last thing: no deficit spending, no debt longer than the 10 year. Treasury.
Darn it, National sales tax, no flag needed!!!
In the long term, military power is proportional to economic power (i.e. aggregate GDP). Therefore in order to protect the constitution and the USA I want the aggregate economy to grow.
I also believe labor specialization has been one of the most important factors in global and US economic growth. Why should I care if my TV is made in Korea or Kansas? The people of Kansas have other things they make.
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.