Here's a pretty easy to read definition of Trickle Down economics. Link


Sure Gene, it's not near as fun as the class warfare you advocate, but much more effective.

Look at who did best during the 1990's. In fact the wealthy NEVER did better then during that 10 year period PAYING THE TAX RATES IN EFFECT BEFORE THE BUSH CUTS. How were the wealthy over taxed and manage to added to their AFTER TAX wealth to the extent they did during the 1990's? To say the wealthy were over taxed prior to 2001 is pure BS. WE can return to the old tax rates for the wealthy, help balance the budget and the wealthy ,after tax, will be just like they were during the 1990's.

The national sales tax would not work because the low and middle income workers could not affort that tax added to the cost of the goods and services they purchase. They already spend alomst 100 % of their take home pay. The savings rate in this country is almost zero. The Fair Tax Group estimates a sales tax would require 23% on Everything including, health care, legal, all services and all things you purchase.

You been hollering BS on all the tax ideas. Well guess what? "I'm" going to call BS on this pile of dung. You seem to forget 1 MAJOR point. That 100% of their take home pay you're talking about is MORE than what you think! If they are not paying the IRS that's money in their pocket that can pay for the sales tax. As been shown, we already pay 19% tax for the most part.

COL Gene Look at who did best during the 1990's. In fact the wealthy NEVER did better then during that 10 year period PAYING THE TAX RATES IN EFFECT BEFORE THE BUSH CUTS. How were the wealthy over taxed and manage to added to their AFTER TAX wealth to the extent they did during the 1990's? To say the wealthy were over taxed prior to 2001 is pure BS. WE can return to the old tax rates for the wealthy, help balance the budget and the wealthy ,after tax, will be just like they were during the 1990's.

Go back, COL and take a look at some of the wealthy returns that were supposedly paying 39% of their money into taxes. Then look at see how many of the folks just didn't file returns (and thus didn't pay taxes nor pay the correct amount of taxes). Also, how many sunk money into the various tax shelters available? If you look, their ultimate tax liability was considerably less that what they should've been paying.

COL Gene First, for a flat tax to work it would first have to allow a deduction that reflects the reality of the taxpayer-- Mortgage interest real estate taxes, children, cost of living in the area where you live, any medical expense paid by the taxpayer and contributions. After those deductions we would need to calculate what % would be required, after the above deductions, to balance the budget. I am sure it would be a lot more the 15%

Okay, I'm trying to follow your logic here. How does a flat, everyone pays the same percentage have to allow for these deductions? Those are loopholes that need to be closed. If you allow ANY opening, they are prone to abuse (as the tax preperation industry is evidence of). Just set it at a flat 15% or 20%.

My net pay every two weeks is taxed in the neighbourhood of 30%. That's not including the other monies taken out for insurance and 401K contributions. I, for one, would appreciate a flat 20% tax. It would make my life a whole lot easier in the February - April time frame every year.

Flat taxes won't work.



I am not an economics major, but after only a few classes, I see why there is such a debate over tax rates, but anybody who know most of the theories would know that a flat tax rate has many issues. Economics isn't just math, its how humans interact with their money. So just saying do this and its fair doesn't quite work.
I think everyone here knows if someone is making a million a year can afford more taken out than someone making 30,000.

I don't agree with the current tax rates, but a flat tax won't work and flies in the face of marginal propensity formulas to spend and save.



No matter how much a man making a million can spend, the reason why he has millions is because people who make 30-100 thousand dollars a year spend money.


The idea that millionaires are the ones who need to have more money to spend it doesn't work with human nature. Human nature is to save. Plus, how much can one person buy? With a person making 30,000, allot of that goes right back into the economy through the Walmarts, Microsoft's, and other businesses. A person making a million dollars a year will not spend a million dollars a year typically.


Business exist because of supply and demand. If there are no people to buy, the demand goes down, money become worth less that it is because no one is spending it, and businesses start downsizing or disappearing. Where are the millionaire if there is no businesses? No clients? No customers?

A person making a million dollars a year will not spend a million dollars a year typically.

So you assume he will burn the money? That would make other people's money more valuable. Will he buy something and burn that? That would add to the economy.

Leauki

the more you make the less of each added dollar you spend . The money the wealthy do not spend goes two places. One into their Surplus in the form of investmnents. The other use is to finance new business which does have a good impact on the economy so long as consumers have the after tax income to purchase the goods or services produced by the new business. However, today low and middle income consumers are spending almost ALL of their income. The better way to grow the economy is to stimulate demand (spending) are tax cuts to the middle income tax payer is the most effective way to accomplsh that increaded spending. That is why we should get the added tax revenue to help balance the budget from the upper income tax payers and not the middle income tax payers.

the more you make the less of each added dollar you spend .

No. I always spend all my money. I don't believe there is anyone who doesn't.

The money the wealthy do not spend goes two places. One into their Surplus in the form of investmnents

Investments are money spent. Whether that investment is in the country in the form of taxes or in private enterprise (in the form of equity or loans) doesn't change that.

All those that call progressive taxation communist do not realise how foolish they are, it is the communist state that treats everyone as the same and snatches the same whoever they are from them.

Taxes are for the benefit of society, the rich HAVE A DUTY to pay more because it is that very society that allows them to operate.

Communism is taking the same amount, a flat tax would take the same percent, and the rich would be paying more, 15% of $1,000,000,000 is more then 15% $1,000

Just my two cents (no pun intended).

All those that call progressive taxation communist do not realise how foolish they are, it is the communist state that treats everyone as the same and snatches the same whoever they are from them.

1. Who called progressive taxation communist?

2. You are mixing up "treating" and "rewarding". Communism is not treating everyone as the same. Never has. Never was meant to.

Taxes are for the benefit of society, the rich HAVE A DUTY to pay more because it is that very society that allows them to operate.

1. The rich have no such duty unless a law says so.

2. Using a flat tax the rich would pay more. So what's your point?

And how is it morally justifiable to ask a person who earns 1k to pay the same rate of tax as a person who earns 1mil? How is it right to ask very low earners to pay tax at all?!

No tax allowances, just the same rate for all. Never has there been a more elitist, socially unjust idea.

And how is it morally justifiable to ask a person who earns 1k to pay the same rate of tax as a person who earns 1mil? How is it right to ask very low earners to pay tax at all?!

How is it morally justifiable to ask a person to pay anything at all ever?

You seem to think there is some kind of objective morality that you are prone to and that everybody else seems to be willing to ignore. Many claim such wisdom as you do, but why listen?

No tax allowances, just the same rate for all. Never has there been a more elitist, socially unjust idea.

You are either a very good satire, or a symptom of a very bad school system. Surely you must have heard of more elitist, socially unjust ideas?

"1. The rich have no such duty unless a law says so."

I believe in social contracts, ALL citizens have responsibilities, only then can citizens have rights. If a government legalised something so repugnant to the body politic and society, it is the duty of all citizens to resist.

"2. Using a flat tax the rich would pay more. So what's your point?"

I think your calculator is broken.

I'm not familiar with US rates, so I'll use UK rates on £1, 000, 000.

Flat rate 15%: £1, 000, 000 = £150, 000

Current rates= £1, 000, 000= £391, 959.20

I'll show my working if you wish (I used to be a tax adviser ; )

"Surely you must have heard of more elitist, socially unjust ideas?"

Not in this country anyway.