[BuddhaBrown]

“Isn’t that code for tax increases?”

YES!

And I’m ALL for it.

When conservatives use words like “broadening the base” and “flattening the rates”, they usually mean more people will be paying and fewer will be getting a free federal ride as do half the population today.

Rush used to joke about “raising taxes on the poor”. But that is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Not for the sake of generating more revenue. But for the simple purpose of restraining their seemingly endless lust for other peoples money.

Closing Richie Rich loopholes and such is great too as part of a simplification strategy. But taxing the tit suckers is a way to get them to at least come up for air.

In other words:

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

[Principled]

Rush used to joke about “raising taxes on the poor”. But that is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Not for the sake of generating more revenue. But for the simple purpose of restraining their seemingly endless lust for other peoples money.

Yes, the method we use to collect revenue does indeed impact on tax policy. When we ALL feel the pain, we ALL want to minimize it. I have been using this argument for 14 years. I'm glad someone else said it out loud. All other things equal, the broader the base, the less appetite there is in DC to increase taxes.

The broadest possible base is all consumers - whether tourists, criminals, illegals, etc - is a national retail sales tax. In such a case, not only does every single voter feel the bite of the federal spending beast - so does every single consumer.

'Course there's a side benefit of border adjustability but that's another thread!

[Sgt_Schultze]

I'd like to see Republicans float a tax idea aimed at silencing the posturing millionaires and billionaires like Gates and Buffett. Both men, plus the "patriotic" millionaires for tax increases, keep clamoring for increased tax rates on high earners, although it would hurt none of them. I'd like to see republicans float the idea of an accumulated wealth tax of 50% on estates in excess of $50 million and 90% on estates in excess of $1 billion. I'd also have them threaten to eliminate the ability of these same uber-wealthy to shelter estates by creating or donating to tax exempt foundations.

I'm betting those same liberal entrepreneurs would howl in anger at the proposals that would actually threaten their wealth.