Schock and Awe - Can he be the face of the party?

[Mint]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

After creating additional tax brackets.

Oh yeah, that's so much better.

BTW: What's with the condescension.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

After creating additional tax brackets.

Oh yeah, that's so much better.

BTW: What's with the condescension.

Creating additional tax brackets makes the system more progressive than it is, which it really isn't. For some of the lower groups it makes sense but the higher it gets it's essentially just a flat tax for a large array of people, regardless.

And it's something that's rubbed off from Phil. Worry not, nothing personal.

[Mint]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

After creating additional tax brackets.

Oh yeah, that's so much better.

BTW: What's with the condescension.

Creating additional tax brackets makes the system more progressive than it is, which it really isn't. For some of the lower groups it makes sense but the higher it gets it's essentially just a flat tax for a large array of people, regardless.

Less bad for my family, but still not desirable. Plus somehow, higher taxation is never enough for government. It just enables them to spend more. Something like the Clinton years, which were heavily fairly center-right anyway, don't really count.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Do you have some sort of point here, or...?

[Mint]

Yeah, taxes and spending are too high.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, taxes and spending are too high.

Look at these crippling high taxes! Look how high they are in relation to the past! It's just out of control!

[Mint]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

Paging Coburn, paging Coburn.

[Mint]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

[Torie]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

[Sbane]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

No, most of them will become more conservative the older they get and start paying taxes.

I have to dispute this. Yes people generally get more conservative as they age but I think the amount is exaggerated. Just look at the boomers now or the Reagan generation. Yeah the boomers are more conservative today than they were 40 years ago, but they are still more liberal than what you would expect at their age. On the flip side we got the people who came of age under Reagan and they are more conservative for their age than you would expect. Our generation is much more liberal and will stay relatively liberal as we age. I think social issues have a lot to do with it and gay marriage  will become key. Republicans just have to moderate on it as fast as they can because even though its a winning issue today, it probably won't be in 10-20 years. And if there is a perception by that time of Republicans being anti-gay then the party will suffer. On the other hand republicans really do not need to moderate on abortion at all. All evidence shows our generation is just as conservative, if not more, than previous generations on that particular issue.

[Zarn]

If he is the future of the GOP, then expect a lot more Libertarians in the future.

[Sbane]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

When people make multi million dollars, do you think raising the tax rate by 5-10% is going to "influence incentives to produce"? It would be wrong to raise the tax rate to 50% on those making $200,000 a year, hell it would ruin the city of SF and Manhattan. But don't tell me it is unfair on someone making 2-3 mil a year, especially after "bonuses". Omg how much do I hate bonuses. Especially in the financial sector they are contractually obligated to give those out regardless of the companies performance.

[Torie]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

When people make multi million dollars, do you think raising the tax rate by 5-10% is going to "influence incentives to produce"? It would be wrong to raise the tax rate to 50% on those making $200,000 a year, hell it would ruin the city of SF and Manhattan. But don't tell me it is unfair on someone making 2-3 mil a year, especially after "bonuses". Omg how much do I hate bonuses. Especially in the financial sector they are contractually obligated to give those out regardless of the companies performance.

A 5% raise would get us to about 50% in some states. If you go much higher, the distortions I think will start to kick in at an increasingly exponential rate. If you think fairness demands higher rates, that will be one of the costs. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. What do you think the top marginal rate should be on income, federal, state and local combined?

[War on Want]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

Robbery that in turn will probably benefit everyone(at least with education, infrastructure and research). I am not going to try and argue that they aren't high but the rich can afford to pay higher taxes while those at the bottom cannot. Would you rather liberals just believe in ridiculous deficits and money printing rather than high taxes on the rich?

Besides what you consider robbery is subjective and I doubt the most of the voting populace that will not have their taxes raised will care if society as a whole benefits from government institutions.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hope no one minds losing public transportation and the fire department.

[Devilman88]

Why not just make a flat tax rate of about 20%-30% across the board?

[Mint]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

Robbery that in turn will probably benefit everyone(at least with education, infrastructure and research). I am not going to try and argue that they aren't high but the rich can afford to pay higher taxes while those at the bottom cannot.

I don't necessarily think more spending is the answer to all of those things, especially education where we've consistently spent more since the '80s only to see continued deterioration. And who exactly is 'rich' according to you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be the case regardless of which party dominates, generally speaking. Now perhaps the situation would be improved with a Democrat in office and a Republican Congress as we saw before, but overall raising taxes to mitigate spending... just results in more spending. Note the trends in the 'Liberal Consensus' (1933-1973). Many of the worst deficits were when we had the highest tax rate, although that's explainable in part due to the depression resulting in lower tax receipts.

[Mint]

Why not just make a flat tax rate of about 20%-30% across the board?

30% would kill a lot of families. I'm not that opposed to something like a 15% flat tax (at least in theory), but we'd need massive cuts in military spending, entitlements, etc. to sustain one. Ones which aren't happening barring something like a government default or some other crisis.

[Sbane]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

When people make multi million dollars, do you think raising the tax rate by 5-10% is going to "influence incentives to produce"? It would be wrong to raise the tax rate to 50% on those making $200,000 a year, hell it would ruin the city of SF and Manhattan. But don't tell me it is unfair on someone making 2-3 mil a year, especially after "bonuses". Omg how much do I hate bonuses. Especially in the financial sector they are contractually obligated to give those out regardless of the companies performance.

A 5% raise would get us to about 50% in some states. If you go much higher, the distortions I think will start to kick in at an increasingly exponential rate. If you think fairness demands higher rates, that will be one of the costs. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. What do you think the top marginal rate should be on income, federal, state and local combined?

Yeah some states, like California, have pretty high tax burdens to begin with. So I guess in California the tax rate would be close to 65% for those making millions of dollars. Again I don't know if that in itself would cause these multi millionaires to become hermits . And if they try the sleazy route and decide to "die" or whatever, I say the government complete their wish and send them to room temperature prematurely. As you can tell I am in a bit of a radical mood today.

[Keystone Phil]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

[Torie]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

When people make multi million dollars, do you think raising the tax rate by 5-10% is going to "influence incentives to produce"? It would be wrong to raise the tax rate to 50% on those making $200,000 a year, hell it would ruin the city of SF and Manhattan. But don't tell me it is unfair on someone making 2-3 mil a year, especially after "bonuses". Omg how much do I hate bonuses. Especially in the financial sector they are contractually obligated to give those out regardless of the companies performance.

A 5% raise would get us to about 50% in some states. If you go much higher, the distortions I think will start to kick in at an increasingly exponential rate. If you think fairness demands higher rates, that will be one of the costs. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. What do you think the top marginal rate should be on income, federal, state and local combined?

Yeah some states, like California, have pretty high tax burdens to begin with. So I guess in California the tax rate would be close to 65% for those making millions of dollars. Again I don't know if that in itself would cause these multi millionaires to become hermits . And if they try the sleazy route and decide to "die" or whatever, I say the government complete their wish and send them to room temperature prematurely. As you can tell I am in a bit of a radical mood today.

Ya, you sound a bit like my nephew. I keep having to remind him, that it is not in his best interests for me to get what I "deserve" just yet. Sometimes justice delayed is best. 

[Sbane]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Do you really think our generation will get more conservative on social issues? Especially gay marriage. I can see it happening on things like taxes and the amount of government involvement in our lives, but not on social issues.

[Mint]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Not every election will be like 2008 forever.

[Keystone Phil]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Do you really think our generation will get more conservative on social issues? Especially gay marriage. I can see it happening on things like taxes and the amount of government involvement in our lives, but not on social issues.

Listen, every generation gets a little more socially moderate or liberal compared to their earlier generation but what you're implying is ridiculous.

The Baby Boomers were supposed to be hethens for their whole life. How'd that turn out?