The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Boeing said:
Scott SoCal said:
redtreviso said:
Scott SoCal said:
redtreviso said:
Scott SoCal said:
redtreviso said:
Scott SoCal said:
redtreviso said:
Scott SoCal said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Please define the level of yearly income you would consider to be "rich" or "wealthy".
For yearly income, I would say greater than $500k. Other factors come into play though as you know: Overall net wealth, geographic location, etc. In San Francisco, it's probably $1m, maybe more. In Sioux City, probably $300k.
What should the top marginal personal income tax rate be in the US?
Either increase it to about 50% on a tier higher than the current top affecting the top .1%, or keep it where it is and either cap or get rid of almost every tax exemption. The only exemptions should be things like charity, primary residence in US, 401k, education perhaps.
How much, as a percentage of income tax receipts, should the top 1% of earners pay? How much should the top 5% pay? 10% and 50% same question.
Similar answer. There should be another tier above where the code currently is, where those in the top .1% or so pay roughly 50%. But what we really need to do is restructure the tax code itself.
Should there be a cap on how much money an individual can make? If so, what should the cap be set at?
No. If you make $1b a year like a few hedge fund people have, then 50% is plenty to tax them. If you don't want all that money going to the government, then they can donate it to charity and still have more money left over than they could possibly spend.
What should the corporate tax rate (on profits) be?
It shouldn't change from where it is. That's not the problem. The problem is how warped and convoluted the code has been made in order to benefit some specific corporations or industries from paying. I mean, why in the hell does the oil industry need a favorable tax exemption??? If we eliminated nearly all of the tax credits, targeted tax relief, etc. the rate would be plenty high already. But this is as much of a state tax problem as a federal one. Some states, such as both yours and mine Scott, have instituted various tax credits that are so favorable that in a few instances the state is actually PAYING someone to do business there with tax revenue. It's insane.
Couple with this numerous government deregulation, subsidies, contracts, etc. that are given to many large businesses (KBR, Koch Industries, etc.) on both federal and state levels, and this is where it's unfair.
Fix all that FIRST, and then we could probably cut the tax rate by 10%.
Should there be a limit on how much money any corporate entity should be allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be?
No. No caps. Make all the money you can. Just do it fairly, and pay your taxes accordingly and all will be fine. Where we need caps are on tax exemptions. Or just eliminate nearly all of them, as I said before.
Beyond providing good and safe working conditions, workers compensation insurance, payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for employees, what else should business be mandated to provide their workers?
At it's root, that's fine. But it's not easy to clump together someone who owns a hot dog stand with one employee, with companies like Exxon, Microsoft, GE, etc. And this is where the liberals have it all wrong as well when they go after "business". It's also where the conservatives have it wrong when they defend all "business".
The root of the problem isn't so much in the tax rate, as it is in how exemptions are made, and why, and how the code is structured. Because of massive lobbying from numerous industries, the fact that many former corporate and Wall St. board members are on many government committees, the tax code is so corrupted and *******ized it's killing the country and making it a plutocracy where those who are connected with the politicians get much greater benefits than those who do not. The "conservatives" are left defending this system for the most part, and the "liberals" want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Where taxes could change IMO are as follows:
• Eliminate, or strictly cap, nearly all exemptions from the tax code. Limit it to (perhaps): Qualified charities. Primary US residence. Up to maybe $20k a year in education. 401k, IRA, HSA. Bicycle tax credit.
• Capital gains taxes need to be re-defined. As is now, they are nearly all clumped together. There needs to be a way to index them to inflation (a Jack Kemp idea 25 years ago that even Lester Thurow agreed with). Plus, as Warren Buffet has partially suggested, have ways to have them more beneficial to direct business investment, including employee benefits in the US, less beneficial to securities investment, and even less to overseas investment and holdings. You invest in your own business, or directly into someone elses, and get profit from that, you pay less. You put your money in large stock and bond funds, you pay more.
• What I stated a few pages ago on the SBA prime and microloans should be greatly extended.
I also favor a re-structuring of health care, as I stated before. Combining single payer that is rationed, with HSAs.
As I have stated many times though what we really need is a complete restructuring of campaign finance laws need to be done. Lobbying as is, should be a felony. If lobbyists wish to contact politicians, they can do it through e-mail, letters like the rest of us. And can speak directly with the politician at town hall meetings in an open forum like everyone else. Until this changes, there will be little changes in taxes.
Where this leaves a gap is in political guidance. For example, at the rate we're going, we're simply going to use up all the oil until it's gone, plus deal with all the ancillary problems of volatility in the Middle East, THEN we're going to look towards alternative energy. What we could be doing now is re-wiring and re-tooling the country for a more major shift to electrical power from renewable such as more solar, wind, and nuclear (yes, I'm still pro-nuclear). But if we leave all of this entirely to the private sector, it won't happen. They'll just stick with oil until it's gone, then take their money and keep it. This is where I agree with the liberals when it comes to government spending, as opposed to just tax credits. Hence, we could give massive tax credits to renewable energy, some already exist, and eliminate oil subsidies, but because of how corrupted and convoluted the tax code has become, I don't trust it. I actually have more trust, at least in this case, of the government working to re-wire the country for more electric power for the coming century, including spending millions of tax payer dollars on doing so. Though the root of lobbying problems still exist even in this situation. And that is why as I said before, we desperately need massive campaign finance reform, and to make lobbying illegal. Do this, and I'll reconsider my position on government spending in this regard.
The root of all of these problems is in the fact people use money to buy access to politicians to get them to alter the laws and tax codes to benefit them. And the politicians use this money to get reelected and stay in power. Both parties, all across the entire country. This is the giant elephant in the room everyone agrees exists, but no one really wants to discuss or tackle. And until it's taken care of, almost nothing else will be fairly changed. You can scream all you want about one tax or the other, one law or the other, but this is the real root of the problem. End of discussion.
redtreviso said:
Certainly when it comes to campaign financing and lobbying. It's the root of all political evil, so to speak.Scott SoCal said:
Which is addressed in my suggestion on capital gains, and those above .1% (not 1%, point 1%) being taxed at a higher rate.redtreviso said:
Scott SoCal said:
Scott SoCal said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Please define the level of yearly income you would consider to be "rich" or "wealthy".
For yearly income, I would say greater than $500k. Other factors come into play though as you know: Overall net wealth, geographic location, etc. In San Francisco, it's probably $1m, maybe more. In Sioux City, probably $300k.
What should the top marginal personal income tax rate be in the US?
Either increase it to about 50% on a tier higher than the current top affecting the top .1%, or keep it where it is and either cap or get rid of almost every tax exemption. The only exemptions should be things like charity, primary residence in US, 401k, education perhaps.
How much, as a percentage of income tax receipts, should the top 1% of earners pay? How much should the top 5% pay? 10% and 50% same question.
Similar answer. There should be another tier above where the code currently is, where those in the top .1% or so pay roughly 50%. But what we really need to do is restructure the tax code itself.
Should there be a cap on how much money an individual can make? If so, what should the cap be set at?
No. If you make $1b a year like a few hedge fund people have, then 50% is plenty to tax them. If you don't want all that money going to the government, then they can donate it to charity and still have more money left over than they could possibly spend.
What should the corporate tax rate (on profits) be?
It shouldn't change from where it is. That's not the problem. The problem is how warped and convoluted the code has been made in order to benefit some specific corporations or industries from paying. I mean, why in the hell does the oil industry need a favorable tax exemption??? If we eliminated nearly all of the tax credits, targeted tax relief, etc. the rate would be plenty high already. But this is as much of a state tax problem as a federal one. Some states, such as both yours and mine Scott, have instituted various tax credits that are so favorable that in a few instances the state is actually PAYING someone to do business there with tax revenue. It's insane.
Couple with this numerous government deregulation, subsidies, contracts, etc. that are given to many large businesses (KBR, Koch Industries, etc.) on both federal and state levels, and this is where it's unfair.
Fix all that FIRST, and then we could probably cut the tax rate by 10%.
Should there be a limit on how much money any corporate entity should be allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be?
No. No caps. Make all the money you can. Just do it fairly, and pay your taxes accordingly and all will be fine. Where we need caps are on tax exemptions. Or just eliminate nearly all of them, as I said before.
Beyond providing good and safe working conditions, workers compensation insurance, payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for employees, what else should business be mandated to provide their workers?
At it's root, that's fine. But it's not easy to clump together someone who owns a hot dog stand with one employee, with companies like Exxon, Microsoft, GE, etc. And this is where the liberals have it all wrong as well when they go after "business". It's also where the conservatives have it wrong when they defend all "business".
The root of the problem isn't so much in the tax rate, as it is in how exemptions are made, and why, and how the code is structured. Because of massive lobbying from numerous industries, the fact that many former corporate and Wall St. board members are on many government committees, the tax code is so corrupted and *******ized it's killing the country and making it a plutocracy where those who are connected with the politicians get much greater benefits than those who do not. The "conservatives" are left defending this system for the most part, and the "liberals" want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Where taxes could change IMO are as follows:
• Eliminate, or strictly cap, nearly all exemptions from the tax code. Limit it to (perhaps): Qualified charities. Primary US residence. Up to maybe $20k a year in education. 401k, IRA, HSA. Bicycle tax credit.
• Capital gains taxes need to be re-defined. As is now, they are nearly all clumped together. There needs to be a way to index them to inflation (a Jack Kemp idea 25 years ago that even Lester Thurow agreed with). Plus, as Warren Buffet has partially suggested, have ways to have them more beneficial to direct business investment, including employee benefits in the US, less beneficial to securities investment, and even less to overseas investment and holdings. You invest in your own business, or directly into someone elses, and get profit from that, you pay less. You put your money in large stock and bond funds, you pay more.
• What I stated a few pages ago on the SBA prime and microloans should be greatly extended.
I also favor a re-structuring of health care, as I stated before. Combining single payer that is rationed, with HSAs.
As I have stated many times though what we really need is a complete restructuring of campaign finance laws need to be done. Lobbying as is, should be a felony. If lobbyists wish to contact politicians, they can do it through e-mail, letters like the rest of us. And can speak directly with the politician at town hall meetings in an open forum like everyone else. Until this changes, there will be little changes in taxes.
Where this leaves a gap is in political guidance. For example, at the rate we're going, we're simply going to use up all the oil until it's gone, plus deal with all the ancillary problems of volatility in the Middle East, THEN we're going to look towards alternative energy. What we could be doing now is re-wiring and re-tooling the country for a more major shift to electrical power from renewable such as more solar, wind, and nuclear (yes, I'm still pro-nuclear). But if we leave all of this entirely to the private sector, it won't happen. They'll just stick with oil until it's gone, then take their money and keep it. This is where I agree with the liberals when it comes to government spending, as opposed to just tax credits. Hence, we could give massive tax credits to renewable energy, some already exist, and eliminate oil subsidies, but because of how corrupted and convoluted the tax code has become, I don't trust it. I actually have more trust, at least in this case, of the government working to re-wire the country for more electric power for the coming century, including spending millions of tax payer dollars on doing so. Though the root of lobbying problems still exist even in this situation. And that is why as I said before, we desperately need massive campaign finance reform, and to make lobbying illegal. Do this, and I'll reconsider my position on government spending in this regard.
The root of all of these problems is in the fact people use money to buy access to politicians to get them to alter the laws and tax codes to benefit them. And the politicians use this money to get reelected and stay in power. Both parties, all across the entire country. This is the giant elephant in the room everyone agrees exists, but no one really wants to discuss or tackle. And until it's taken care of, almost nothing else will be fairly changed. You can scream all you want about one tax or the other, one law or the other, but this is the real root of the problem. End of discussion.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram