Wouldn't a 10% flat tax w/o corp tax bring in more revenue than the current system?

[Anarchist420]

It would create jobs, which would bring in more revenue from the income of jobs created, and less people would evade it. When the top marginal rate was 25% under Coolidge, they brought in more revenue than when it was 94% under FDR.

plus, it's fair because the person who makes $10,000 pays less than the person who makes $50,000.

My dad's medical practice could basically hire 2 or 3 more full time doctors compared to the current tax rate, plus another doctor without the corporate tax.

Medical equipment is expensive, so if they got rid of the corporate tax, they could get better equipment, or invest in better things.

 

[LegendKiller]

Seriously, do you just create thread after thread and never respond to posts inside your threads?

Idiot, lower taxes does not equate to jobs, especially at the top end of the earning pyramid. It leads to aggregation of wealth and eventual strong plutocracy which turns into a quasi-monarchy.

 

[sandorski]

Flat Tax 4tl. No Corporate Tax might have merit, although Tax Breaks for certain Expenses is the better way to steer Investment in directions that benefit the Economy/Society.

 

[Hacp]

Lowering taxes doesn't always mean higher revenue. However, lowering taxes means putting money back into the hands of productive people, which is always a good thing. When productive people have money, good things happen.

 

[LegendKiller]

Lowering taxes doesn't always mean lower revenue. However, lowering taxes means putting money back into the hands of productive people, which is always a good thing. When productive people have money, good things happen.

So says theory but not 100% in reality.

 

[sandorski]

First define "Productive People". I suspect that whom you're thinking of doesn't make the grade.

 

[Craig234]

Lowering taxes doesn't always mean higher revenue. However, lowering taxes means putting money back into the hands of productive people, which is always a good thing. When productive people have money, good things happen.

A top 1% guy is given an extra billion dollars. He uses it to buy 2 companies he didn't previously own, so their profit and any appreciation goes into his pockets.

That didn't help anyone but him. It did drive the prices of the companies up, making them less available to others.

The top 1% class is given 20% more money. They bid up the costs of companies and other investments to buy, which doesn't help the country, and makes owning them harder.

There are a lot of ignorant people who fall for propaganda because they don't know any better how things work.

If course the situation is much more complicated than above, it's just to make the point how wrong the post quoted was.

The right needs to learn that excessively concentrated wealth is bad for society.

 

[LegendKiller]

A top 1% guy is given an extra billion dollars. He uses it to buy 2 companies he didn't previously own, so their profit and any appreciation goes into his pockets.

That didn't help anyone but him. It did drive the prices of the companies up, making them less available to others.

The top 1% class is given 20% more money. They bid up the costs of companies and other investments to buy, which doesn't help the country, and makes owning them harder.

There are a lot of ignorant people who fall for propaganda because they don't know any better how things work.

If course the situation is much more complicated than above, it's just to make the point how wrong the post quoted was.

The right needs to learn that excessively concentrated wealth is bad for society.

BUT...BUT...

It's his money, who cares what he does with it or how productive he really is to society. He "earned" it, therefore he can do what he wants, no matter what...!


This is the type of short-sighted bullshit that righties can't quite figure out. They are the same ones driving around SUVs, guzzling gas because they can, not because they shouldn't.

Just because you can doesn't mean it's best to do.

Could I go out, right now, and buy a CTS-V. Sure, I could, but I won't. I'll keep driving my Honda Accord i4. Why? Because it's enough.


We are like the spoiled kids of rich parents. Because we think we can do it, we do it. Nobody makes us think of the consequences and every time somebody tries to put rules on us we cry that they are unfair and we don't have enough freedom. Yet we have enough freedom to destroy our own long-term survival.

 

[Hacp]

BUT...BUT...

It's his money, who cares what he does with it or how productive he really is to society. He "earned" it, therefore he can do what he wants, no matter what...!


This is the type of short-sighted bullshit that righties can't quite figure out. They are the same ones driving around SUVs, guzzling gas because they can, not because they shouldn't.

Just because you can doesn't mean it's best to do.

Could I go out, right now, and buy a CTS-V. Sure, I could, but I won't. I'll keep driving my Honda Accord i4. Why? Because it's enough.


We are like the spoiled kids of rich parents. Because we think we can do it, we do it. Nobody makes us think of the consequences and every time somebody tries to put rules on us we cry that they are unfair and we don't have enough freedom. Yet we have enough freedom to destroy our own long-term survival.

This is the socialist agenda. Sociologists and psychologists are trying to tell us what to do and how to behave. The American people will have none of that.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This is the socialist agenda. Sociologists and psychologists are trying to tell us what to do and how to behave. The American people will have none of that.

Personal responsibility is a socialist agenda? Tell me more good things about this Socialism...

 

[Hacp]

Personal responsibility is a socialist agenda? Tell me more good things about this Socialism...

The socialist agenda is to tell us where to live, how to live, and what to do.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The socialist agenda is to tell us where to live, how to live, and what to do.

So it's Socialists who keep you in the basement sponging off your mom & dad?

 

[ShawnD1]

Lowering taxes doesn't always mean higher revenue. However, lowering taxes means putting money back into the hands of productive people, which is always a good thing. When productive people have money, good things happen.

Not always. See if there's an error in what I'm thinking
-people with good paying jobs tend to be smarter than average (ie doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses)
-smart people are smart enough to save money
-saved money does not stimulate the economy

Am I right? Stupid people spend their way into problems whereas smart people try really hard to save money for a rainy day or retirement or college that their kid won't attend for another 10 years.


Also, this subject is straight up LOL. Rich people pay most of the taxes and their tax rate is quite a bit higher than 10%. I think in that other thread someone said it was effectively 16% (extremely rich people like Bill Gates live off dividends which are taxed much lower than T4 income). Dropping it to 10% would cause a huge ginormous deficit.

So it's Socialists who keep you in the basement sponging off your mom & dad?

They let him live there instead of dying homeless because they are socialists

 

[Hacp]

Not always. See if there's an error in what I'm thinking
-people with good paying jobs tend to be smarter than average (ie doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses)
-smart people are smart enough to save money
-saved money does not stimulate the economy

Am I right? Stupid people spend their way into problems whereas smart people try really hard to save money for a rainy day or retirement or college that their kid won't attend for another 10 years.


Also, this subject is straight up LOL. Rich people pay most of the taxes and their tax rate is quite a bit higher than 10%. I think in that other thread someone said it was effectively 16% (extremely rich people like Bill Gates live off dividends which are taxed much lower than T4 income). Dropping it to 10% would cause a huge ginormous deficit.



They let him live there instead of dying homeless because they are socialists

So what you're saying is you're fine with stealing other people's money in the name of stimulating the economy. You want to dilute all the blood, sweat, and tears the people put into earning the money just so you can have your socialist utopia where 1 in 8 americans are on food stamps. Wait, nvm. You're Canadian. You don't give a shit about the US. You want to see American superiority deteriorate.

 

[sandorski]

So what you're saying is you're fine with stealing other people's money in the name of stimulating the economy. You want to dilute all the blood, sweat, and tears the people put into earning the money just so you can have your socialist utopia where 1 in 8 americans are on food stamps. Wait, nvm. You're Canadian. You don't give a shit about the US. You want to see American superiority deteriorate.

Hell, if he wanted that he'd agree with you.

 

[ShawnD1]

So what you're saying is you're fine with stealing other people's money in the name of stimulating the economy.

Obviously yes. I'm willing to offend some rich snob if it improves the quality of life for the other 99% of the population. This logic is also why I'm in favor of expelling all trouble makers in school; kicking out 1 asshole to improve the education of 30 normal people. Remember Wrath of Khan?

You want to dilute all the blood, sweat, and tears the people put into earning the money just so you can have your socialist utopia where 1 in 8 americans are on food stamps.

As opposed to hacp's utopia where people die from easily treatable illnesses because you think people working at Walmart don't deserve socialized health care. You also speak out against unions because you think the US should have an underclass of people who make less than the current minimum wage, which is another thing you argued against.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is the socialist agenda. Sociologists and psychologists are trying to tell us what to do and how to behave. The American people will have none of that.

Bullshit. It's a logical agenda. Read up on the Tragedy of the Commons.

Inefficient and ridiculous usage of finite resources is a tragedy and ignorant. That ignorance is pushed by the right because they really have no long-term goals.

 

[LegendKiller]

So what you're saying is you're fine with stealing other people's money in the name of stimulating the economy. You want to dilute all the blood, sweat, and tears the people put into earning the money just so you can have your socialist utopia where 1 in 8 americans are on food stamps. Wait, nvm. You're Canadian. You don't give a shit about the US. You want to see American superiority deteriorate.

How much do you make per year? Be honest, not Internet liar.

 

[LegendKiller]

So what you're saying is you're fine with stealing other people's money in the name of stimulating the economy. You want to dilute all the blood, sweat, and tears the people put into earning the money just so you can have your socialist utopia where 1 in 8 americans are on food stamps. Wait, nvm. You're Canadian. You don't give a shit about the US. You want to see American superiority deteriorate.

No, you want to see wealth disparity increase, lower class to deteriorate into effective serfdom, and for us to eventually topple in a revolution. That is the inevitability of the agenda you push.

 

[ShawnD1]

No, you want to see wealth disparity increase, lower class to deteriorate into effective serfdom, and for us to eventually topple in a revolution. That is the inevitability of the agenda you push.

Ironically it would probably be a communist revolution. Instead of hacp giving a little bit of ground to the poor people, the entire country would be given to them and they'd fuck it up big time. Shocking, but don't fret. There's still time to change it all and strengthen the middle class.

 

[Deudalus]

Honestly, its a fantastic idea.

1: Whoever said saving money is bad for the economy is stupid. Do you really think banks just take the money and lock it into a closet?

It wasn't over saving that got us into this mess, it was over spending by people who couldn't afford to spend money (and create jobs). You know the poor and middle class that everyone is trying to throw money at. The people that don't create jobs.

2: Jobs aren't being created right now and it isn't because the job creators don't have money. They have plenty of money. Jobs aren't being created right now because of instability in the economy.

The US is the strongest economy in the world because we are STABLE. If you give a businessman a stable playing field they will find ways to make money and thus employ people. If you give them tax hikes, tax cuts, tax cuts expiring, massive health care changes, financial reform, and on down the list they see uncertainty.

When they see uncertainty they stash money rather than look for ways to make money.

You can't offer tax credits to hire people when they have no idea what the investment/business landscape is going to look like 3 months from now much less 3 years from now.

Obama offered change, he is giving us change, and until the change settles NOTHING is going to happen. His change is what is keeping the economy stagnant.


The economy boomed under Clinton for many reasons but the biggest reason is there was GRIDLOCK. Everyone was too busy talking about blue dresses to pass a bill and there was a very stable landscape for investors to make money on.

If Republicans take the house and close the gap in the senate and if Democrats wise up and extend the tax cuts to everyone the economy will start to turn around next year because everyone is going to be too busy fighting to fuck up the business world.

Mark it on the wall. Save this post. Its fact.

 

[sandorski]

Honestly, its a fantastic idea.

1: Whoever said saving money is bad for the economy is stupid. Do you really think banks just take the money and lock it into a closet?

It wasn't over saving that got us into this mess, it was over spending by people who couldn't afford to spend money (and create jobs). You know the poor and middle class that everyone is trying to throw money at. The people that don't create jobs.

2: Jobs aren't being created right now and it isn't because the job creators don't have money. They have plenty of money. Jobs aren't being created right now because of instability in the economy.

The US is the strongest economy in the world because we are STABLE. If you give a businessman a stable playing field they will find ways to make money and thus employ people. If you give them tax hikes, tax cuts, tax cuts expiring, massive health care changes, financial reform, and on down the list they see uncertainty.

When they see uncertainty they stash money rather than look for ways to make money.

You can't offer tax credits to hire people when they have no idea what the investment/business landscape is going to look like 3 months from now much less 3 years from now.

Obama offered change, he is giving us change, and until the change settles NOTHING is going to happen. His change is what is keeping the economy stagnant.


The economy boomed under Clinton for many reasons but the biggest reason is there was GRIDLOCK. Everyone was too busy talking about blue dresses to pass a bill and there was a very stable landscape for investors to make money on.

If Republicans take the house and close the gap in the senate and if Democrats wise up and extend the tax cuts to everyone the economy will start to turn around next year because everyone is going to be too busy fighting to fuck up the business world.

Mark it on the wall. Save this post. Its fact.

Incorrect. It Boomed because there was a New Technology which was potentially revolutionary and everyone wanted a piece of it.

 

[Slew Foot]

Incorrect. It Boomed because there was a New Technology which was potentially revolutionary and everyone wanted a piece of it.

And then it crashed, and luckily for Clinton, he got out before it did.


And then there was housing, which was going to make everyone in the US a billionaire landowner. And then it crashed but unfortunately for GWB, he was still in office.

 

[ShawnD1]

1: Whoever said saving money is bad for the economy is stupid. Do you really think banks just take the money and lock it into a closet?

Um yes? Do you even have a TV or a newspaper in your city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_crunch

It wasn't over saving that got us into this mess, it was over spending by people who couldn't afford to spend money (and create jobs). You know the poor and middle class that everyone is trying to throw money at. The people that don't create jobs.

Oh I get it. So the reason McDonalds exists as a restaurant isn't because people have money to spend on burgers, but because rich people have money to open a store. If the lower and middle classes suddenly had no disposable income and could not afford burgers, McDonalds would still remain open just because rich people love paying employees to serve customers that don't exist. This makes perfect sense. You should be an economist. Serious.

2: Jobs aren't being created right now and it isn't because the job creators don't have money. They have plenty of money. Jobs aren't being created right now because of instability in the economy.

A lot of it is simply low demand. People who were buying things in the past are no longer buying things. 5 years ago you could work as a full time laborer building houses. Right now people don't want houses, so laborers are out of work, electricians are out of work, plumbers are out of work. It has a cascading effect where people lose their job, they stop buying stuff because they have no job, demand drops, other people lose their job because their product is no longer in demand, those people then stop spending, etc. This is sometimes called demand-side economics.
Theoretically the way to get it back on track is through huge huge government spending to get people back to work. Those employed people then start to spend money. This creates demand. Then rich people meet the demand by starting companies or hiring more people to existing companies. When the economy is rolling again, the government jobs should theoretically go away. I say theoretically because that doesn't seem to happen with certain things like homeland security or the US having 3 million people working for the military.

 

[sandorski]

And then it crashed, and luckily for Clinton, he got out before it did.


And then there was housing, which was going to make everyone in the US a billionaire landowner. And then it crashed but unfortunately for GWB, he was still in office.

2 very different situations though. The Internet Bubble made a lot of sense due to the potential of it. Housing, not so much. It's not like someone just Invented Housing and everyone just had to have the latest Technology.