Trumped up trickle down or Clintonized?

[Boreas]

I think the key is the volatility, the decade of the 1980s being very telling. A low capital gains rate is associated with both a near record period of negative GDP growth and a period of near record increase in GDP.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I think the key is the volatility, the decade of the 1980s being very telling. A low capital gains rate is associated with both a near record period of negative GDP growth and a period of near record increase in GDP.

Maybe that's simply a good case for setting the tax at a modest level and LEAVING IT THE HELL ALONE thereafter.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Maybe that's simply a good case for setting the tax at a modest level and LEAVING IT THE HELL ALONE thereafter.

Or at a rate similar to the one in effect during the most frequent periods of high GDP growth, or about 25%. 30% would appear to be too high and 15% too low.

[JCricket]

I have long thought a simple 20% tax on all income, be it personal or business, would solve a lot of problems. No deductions, no loop holes, no exceptions, just a straight 20%.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by JCricket

I have long thought a simple 20% tax on all income, be it personal or business, would solve a lot of problems. No deductions, no loop holes, no exceptions, just a straight 20%.

Are you talking about a flat tax or a top marginal rate? A 20% income tax would be unsustainable for most middle class families and all poor families. A graduated income tax is essential in a country that has the disparity in incomes that we have here.

[donquixote99]

Flat-tax schemes are a bonanza for the 1%, shifting the burden to the poor and middle-class.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Flat-tax schemes are a bonanza for the 1%, shifting the burden to the poor and middle-class.

Really? Trump has paid zero but then would have to pay %20. If he loses money, he loses money. The losses would never be part of the equation. So how much do business and the wealthy pay now, as an average percentage? I have no idea, this is not a cynical question.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Really? Trump has paid zero but then would have to pay %20. If he loses money, he loses money. The losses would never be part of the equation. So how much do business and the wealthy pay now, as an average percentage? I have no idea, this is not a cynical question.

Policy isn't made just based on one guy. Not many of the super-rich ever have nearly billion-dollar losses to apply for years and years. The very richest do pay less tax than most of the top one percent.

Some good info here: http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...thy-americans/

Note your scheme would be a tax increase for people earning 75,000 a year, especially if you eliminate that standard deduction that is usually applied to such income....

[Oerets]

Like I stated before, property taxes are based on value. Higher the value the higher the tax. If one can afford a big home, lots of land, then pay more in taxes. Same with commercial property, taxed at a higher rate. At least in the two states I have owned property, that is the way it worked.

A country can not rely on the wealthy spending habits to fund the economy thus receive revenue. Revenue mind you paid by those who do not qualify for deductions on a whole. Any more most federal tax payer file standard deduction rather then itemize.


Barney

[JJIII]

Fair Tax, anyone?

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairta...FQ6taQodfTMP6A