What should our tax brackets be?

[MalaspinaGold]

A little bit of topic, but what do people think about having the child tax credit only be in effect for the first three or so children?

[barfbag]

A little bit of topic, but what do people think about having the child tax credit only be in effect for the first three or so children?

I'd say 4 children. Kids can be expensive with their $100 a week allowances.

[Link]

Our spending is ridiculous. Dodd-Frank found a way to include funding to study the eating patterns of snails and wool studies.

The only thing that is ridiculous is the notion you have ever truly looked at the budget.  These threads are dumb because people will make ludicrous tax tables and not explain how much of a shortfall they will cause and what they will do to make up for that shortfall.

Barfbag if you think a handful of research studies you don't understand and don't agree with are what is destroying our fiscal house then you really shouldn't be talking about the budget.

If someone starts talking about the budget and they don't say anything about Medicare/medicaid, Social Security, and the military you know they are a troll.  Those are the biggest ticket items by far.  The other stuff is peanuts.  You could do 100% cuts in those other areas, which would be mindbogglingly disruptive, and you would still be in debt.  The only solution is to make substantial cuts to the big three and raise revenue.  No other plan will work.

[Link]

A little bit of topic, but what do people think about having the child tax credit only be in effect for the first three or so children?

Two maximum and it should be phased out above a certain income level.  The only people that should have three children should be upper middle class or the wealthy.  We should not subsidies people procreating excessively.  There is a line around the block of people waiting to get into the country.  Why should we pay people to have an excessive amount of children.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

Spending.

Do you mean raw spending or as a percentage of GDP? The former is utterly meaningless.

[barfbag]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

Spending.

Do you mean raw spending or as a percentage of GDP? The former is utterly meaningless.

Spending should be held to GDP per capita.

[opebo]

Our spending is ridiculous. Dodd-Frank found a way to include funding to study the eating patterns of snails and wool studies. Obama's bribery which he referred to as stimulus included $150,000,000 in honey bee insurance. You're telling me we don't live above our means in this country? Our debt is suffering because people can't be happy with what they have.

Our spending is inadequate.  We don't 'live above our means', our rich live upon our means.  Eliminate their golden toilet bowls and double spending.

Class envy ^^

Nope, it is class hatred, bb.  Kill the rich, not 'get rich'.[/quote]

[DC Al Fine]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

Spending.

Do you mean raw spending or as a percentage of GDP? The former is utterly meaningless.

As a % GDP. I too am annoyed by raw numbers. There's only so many times I can be attacked for the Tories "record deficit" of 1.2% GDP

[barfbag]

We should limit spending to x amount per person. x= the cost of living per individual. If all people were averaged out by survival expenses, then we would spend that much per person and no more. This doesn't mean we have to spend this much because not everyone needs to have government assistance. The rest could be spent on paying off our national debt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, taxation is at historical lows and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Or... Spending is at a historical high and it's led to a ballooning deficit.

Lief's statement is fact, yours is fantasy, bb.

The only other era where government spending in the USA was higher as a % GDP was during WW2.

Spending or the deficit?

Deficits don't matter unless inflation is over 4%, anyways.

Spending.

Do you mean raw spending or as a percentage of GDP? The former is utterly meaningless.

As a % GDP. I too am annoyed by raw numbers. There's only so many times I can be attacked for the Tories "record deficit" of 1.2% GDP

Anyway, you're right, though I should note that about 25% is still far below average for developed countries...

[barfbag]

It's awesome that you agree with 25% as a high tax bracket. What do you think of other taxes such as marriage, death, and child tax credits? Would you consider being a Republican?

[MalaspinaGold]

Is there any noise to limit the child tax credit in Washington? I imagine some Republicans might oppose it because of the family, but I'm not sure.

What would be the arguments against it?

[barfbag]

Is there any noise to limit the child tax credit in Washington? I imagine some Republicans might oppose it because of the family, but I'm not sure.

What would be the arguments against it?

Arguments against it would be that parents get about $1,600 for four kids and that's enough aside from their incomes. Another point which could be made is that if families receive WIC, food stamps, or unemployment benefits, then they shouldn't receive the child tax credit. I support the child tax credit up to 4 children under the age of 18 for families making less than $400,000.

[Downnice]

For Income tax

15% no loopholes

For Corporate

20% get rid of all loopholes

National 5% sales tax.

Lowers taxes but a higher effective tax rate

[7,052,770]

0%: $0 - $200,000
40%: $200,000


Maybe not exactly those numbers, but something along those lines.

[barfbag]

0%: $0 - $200,000
40%: $200,000


Maybe not exactly those numbers, but something along those lines.

This could help people, but also hurt those who use their income to hire workers which would cost jobs.

[politicallefty]

I don't have any exact numbers in mind, but I think the tax code should be heavily progressive and incentivize growth and investment. If the obscenely wealthy are simply going to pocket massive sums of income, I would have no problem forcing them to pay the maximum rates during the Eisenhower years. However, if the money is reinvested in the economy to promote growth and job creation, they should pay much less. I also believe that anyone under the poverty line should pay zero federal income tax. I had no problem with the 2001 Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle classes.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Current Federal Income Tax Bracket
$0 - 8,925: 10%
$8,925 - 36,250: 15%
$36,250 - 87,850: 25%
$87,850 - 183,250: 28%
$183,250 - 398,350: 33%
$398,350 - 400,000: 35%
$400,000 and above: 39.6%

HockeyDude's adjusted income tax for justice and freedom
$0 - 20,000: 0%
$20,000 - 30,000: 10%
$30,000 - 50,000: 12.5%
$50,000 - 100,000: 20%
$100,000 - 200,000: 25%
$200,000 - 250,000: 32.5%
$250,000 - 1,000,000: 40%
$1,000,000 - 5,000,000: 50%
$5,000,000 - 50,000,000: 60%
$50,000,000 and above: starts at 60%, and increases 2.5% for every $5 million

100K and less are a whopping 89% of the U.S. population.

50k and less are a clear majority of 55%  These patriots, the backbones of our nation have propped up the nation on their aching backs for waaaaaaaaay too long.  No reason they should pay any more than 12.5% in income tax.  

[Torie]

Are all of these rates tossed out there some ideal, or based on balancing the need for revenue at the moment vis a vis what works economically? One is not necessarily the same as the other.

[barfbag]

Tariffs on imported goods would be a better way to help with spending and our debt as opposed to higher taxes.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The problem isn't necessarily the rates themselves. The problem is that changing the rates has real consequences. At least that's what I'm coming to believe.

Reagan solved a short-term problem with a long-term change. In the end, I'm not sure the change was for the better, as the income inequality we see today is really troubling (and it's only getting worse). People should be able to work hard and climb up the ladder, yes... but there's no reason why a CEO should earn 400 times the amount of his workers. Unfortunately, when the economy settles into a tax structure, readjusting is hard. There's no way to erase what Reagan did without suffering through job losses and the like. It's a bit of a catch 22: leave things be and the situation gets worse; change things and the situation gets worse. In the end, I feel like people are kind of at the mercy of the tax code that has been set out before them. If I was a lawmaker, I don't think I'd be proposing any hikes or any cuts. It's tricky business.

In theory, 50% rates aren't terrible. Getting there is what's terrible.

[7,052,770]

The problem isn't necessarily the rates themselves. The problem is that changing the rates has real consequences. At least that's what I'm coming to believe.

Reagan solved a short-term problem with a long-term change. In the end, I'm not sure the change was for the better, as the income inequality we see today is really troubling (and it's only getting worse). People should be able to work hard and climb up the ladder, yes... but there's no reason why a CEO should earn 400 times the amount of his workers. Unfortunately, when the economy settles into a tax structure, readjusting is hard. There's no way to erase what Reagan did without suffering through job losses and the like. It's a bit of a catch 22: leave things be and the situation gets worse; change things and the situation gets worse. In the end, I feel like people are kind of at the mercy of the tax code that has been set out before them. If I was a lawmaker, I don't think I'd be proposing any hikes or any cuts. It's tricky business.

In theory, 50% rates aren't terrible. Getting there is what's terrible.

[barfbag]

How do people feel about the fair tax or a flat tax rate? In exchange we could pay for government services with user fees such as toll roads, tariffs, raising the price of stamps, and other things.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

How do people feel about the fair tax or a flat tax rate? In exchange we could pay for government services with user fees such as toll roads, tariffs, raising the price of stamps, and other things.

No.  Our system is NOT fair.  Not at all.  Richer people should pay higher rates.  It doesn't do nearly enough to balance the unfairness, but it's at least an acknowledgment of it. 

[DC Al Fine]

How do people feel about the fair tax or a flat tax rate? In exchange we could pay for government services with user fees such as toll roads, tariffs, raising the price of stamps, and other things.

It depends what you mean by "fair tax". "Fair taxes" are VAT's and therefore regressive as hell. A flat tax is fair but impractical as the poors can't really afford to pay the required %'s. Some progressive taxation is required IMO if there is going to be a functioning welfare state, even if you are going down the "punish the rich" route.