Federal Income Tax Reform

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by zgillis, Dec 9, 2011.

  1. zgillis

    zgillis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    It is obvious that throughout the years, the tax on the rich has been reduced constantly. Reagan brought it down from 90%. In my opinion he was the beginning of the corrupted GOP. Anyways, there is also proof that the "trickle-down" theory isn't working because poverty is increasing, and also increasing is the net worth of the richest people in America. What are your opinions on the increasing/decreasing the wealthy tax. Also, how do you feel about the flat-tax. Is it an attempt to bring down the wealthy people's taxes even more? And how would reducing taxes actually help increase government revenue?
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, it's the taxes on the poor that have reduced the most. Believe it or not, the U.S. has a fairly progressive tax system, much more progressive than most of Europe.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
     
  3. zgillis

    zgillis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    The poor had their taxes reduced too (they weren't cut in half like the rich's were though), but I feel like the GOP is cutting the wealthy taxes and cutting social programs like education, medicare, and social security to fill in the missing revenue.

    *Also, this website appears to be very conservative-sided.
     
  4. Chad

    Chad New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's to compete with the other countries that have reduced rates. It's the same as lowering the price of a product to sell more. The thing about wealthy people is... they can afford to go elsewhere. Taking money from people to redistribute through government programs may temporarily help poverty, but then you'll have less and less people to take from. Eventually you'll be back where you started, with more poverty, and no one left to take it from. Of course that's a bit dramatized, there won't ever be no rich people here, but I doubt you'll see nearly as much growth.
     
  5. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no evidence whatsoever that countries compete based on tax rate.

    Just more market evangelism dissociated from reality.

    As to redistribution, it is a necessity to make sure capital isn't concentrated into the hands of a few, with all the economic and social distortions that causes. Misallocation of capital is the major problem with our economy which can only be solved by a huge tax increase on the wealthy, redistributed into investments in productivity through public works, education, etc.

    We tried the market evangelist lunacy. It brought us the Great Depression and now the Bush Meltdown. Total failure.
     

Share This Page