I am saying that taxes should be cut along with spending, so that leaves no need for inflation. As for lower spending leading citizens to not being able to do anything- I am not sure what you mean by that. Lower spending and lower taxes means more money in the pockets of citizens. If anything, they can do MORE.Aren't taxes low enough? A 1% decrease in our sales tax in 2008 only led us to a high inflation, thus our consumers actually did not save any money. How are you going to pay off debts with less revenue coming in? In addition to that, by spending less, how are your citizens going to be able to do anything? Do you really want to leave them for dead?
If you look at our tax brackets you will see that per income, the top does pay more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates (I know wiki isn't the best source, but I think it is ok for these purposes.) I actually think that is wrong to make the rich pay more, but that is how it is right now. I don't understand how you can rationalize or even say it is moral to punish the rich for being successful. That is just absurd in my mind. I personally think everyone should pay the same amount in taxes because the government is here to protect all of us equally. My preference: abolish the income tax altogether.http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/Warren_Buffett_s_Fellow_Billionaires_Don_t_Bite_on_Million_Dollar_Tax_Challenge
How is it a progressive tax system in this country? As income levels go up you pay less as a PERCENTAGE. Sure as a dollar figure rich pay more but isnt that a war of semantics?..The difference between someone making 30k and paying 30% and someone making 5 million and paying 18% is huge. Sure the 5 million dollar person is paying about a million in tax whole the person at 30k is paying 10k so yea if you are talking about the 1 million versus the 10k. sure. But then at the end of the day one person has 20k and the other has 4 million.. hmmmm...
That is the nature of the Warren Buffet challenge. Prove to me that you pay more in taxes than your receptionist. 3 friends of his calculated it and each was paying about 17% while their receptionist were paying 30%.
Tax Cuts? what I would like to know is HOW were the tax rates that high 50 years ago. Is your suggestion that the bottom dollar amount someone pays is more relevant than the percentage of their income? Why arent the rates the SAME. I am not talking about a 90% tax rate on the top !%.. I am talking about a flat rate for everyone? Why not? 20%?
While I am not sure of the exact numbers, I am pretty sure everyone didn't pay that much, but just some of the higher brackets. Personally, I liked what it was before 1913- no income tax at all. I believe in keeping the fruits of one's labor.yeah I think we might be saying the same thing here. I dont think either of us would mind a 20% tax rate for everyone. No deductions. (good GOD that seems like a LOT of money though.)
what I was speaking about before was the insane percentages people used to pay back in the day. I cant figure out how people got away with that before.
That is how it is here too and the poor here are NOT contributing more than the rich, far from it.The tax system here is progressive by percent, but it's by the first x amount of dollars are taxed on this rate, the second y amount of dollars are taxed on a higher rate, etc. It is unfair that as a whole, the poor are contributing more percentage-wise than the rich.