You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #35: self-delete. n/t [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. self-delete. n/t
Edited on Mon Jan-31-11 08:17 AM by vaberella
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Would you support a more progressive tax system? ProSense  Jan-30-11 12:23 AM   #0 
  - Neither. As much as I hate what some of these fuckwads take in, I don't think  gateley   Jan-30-11 12:47 AM   #1 
  - Most people in that  ProSense   Jan-30-11 12:55 AM   #2 
  - If that's true, how would we ever raise enough revenue with those rates? n/t  pnwmom   Jan-30-11 01:01 AM   #4 
  - we don't  quaker bill   Feb-03-11 04:30 AM   #73 
  - Yeah, well in my fantasy scenario they wouldn't get those breaks, just pay the tax. nt  gateley   Jan-30-11 01:20 AM   #9 
  - Tariffs  Hawkowl   Jan-30-11 02:25 AM   #11 
  - self-delete. n/t  vaberella   Jan-31-11 08:13 AM   #35 
  - Just so we are clear, those rates are not rates for 'fuckwads' or  Bluenorthwest   Jan-30-11 09:35 AM   #15 
  - Thank-you for mentioning that.  verges   Jan-30-11 01:47 PM   #26 
  - 90% is not accurate  joeglow3   Jan-31-11 08:56 AM   #36 
     - "90% is not accurate. Nobody paid that because of all the deductions allowed back then. "  ProSense   Jan-31-11 09:18 AM   #40 
        - I am saying you ignore on side of the equation  joeglow3   Feb-01-11 02:41 PM   #67 
           - No, there is nothing being ignored.  ProSense   Feb-01-11 03:09 PM   #70 
  - Absolutely no one would be paying 60% of their income in taxes under either suggestion.  LiberalFighter   Jan-30-11 10:39 AM   #17 
  - +1  Hansel   Jan-30-11 12:13 PM   #23 
  - Great point.  ProSense   Jan-30-11 12:28 PM   #24 
  - Nobody paid those high rates, loop holes galore before Reagan  golfguru   Jan-30-11 10:48 AM   #19 
  - Even with the loopholes, the tax rates were much higher  ProSense   Jan-30-11 12:52 PM   #25 
     - No question, and no manufacturing competition from 1.3 Billion Chinese  golfguru   Jan-30-11 03:57 PM   #28 
        - That still doesn't explain why  ProSense   Jan-30-11 04:13 PM   #29 
           - All depends on how that 4.5% is calculated  golfguru   Jan-30-11 08:03 PM   #30 
              - No it doesn't depend.  ProSense   Jan-30-11 09:39 PM   #31 
              - How do you know how they are calculated?  golfguru   Jan-31-11 02:55 AM   #32 
              - The numbers aren't individual tax filings  ProSense   Jan-31-11 09:04 AM   #38 
              - Sure it does  joeglow3   Jan-31-11 09:00 AM   #37 
                 - "As a CPA who does income taxes for a Fortune 500, I can assure you it is not that easy. "  ProSense   Jan-31-11 09:05 AM   #39 
                    - Chart  ProSense   Jan-31-11 09:56 AM   #42 
                    - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-31-11 12:12 PM   #47 
                    - You're making no sense and now resorting to condescension? n/t  ProSense   Jan-31-11 12:15 PM   #50 
                    - That also happens to follow the trend towards globilization  joeglow3   Feb-01-11 02:45 PM   #69 
                    - Again, that does not tell the whole picture  joeglow3   Feb-01-11 02:44 PM   #68 
              - national sales tax is extremely unfair. The poor and middle class pay way to much, even with  Mass   Jan-31-11 10:04 AM   #44 
                 - The poor should get a tax refund based on income to compensate  golfguru   Jan-31-11 12:09 PM   #45 
                    - Still very unfair. The very rich are helped by that, while the middle class is killed.  Mass   Jan-31-11 12:12 PM   #46 
                    - How is it unfair if sales tax you paid is pretty much returned to you  golfguru   Jan-31-11 12:13 PM   #48 
                       - Because the rich consume a much lower percent of their income than the poor or the middle class.  Mass   Jan-31-11 12:15 PM   #51 
                       - You may be missing my entire point  golfguru   Jan-31-11 08:33 PM   #57 
                          - I am not missing anything and have a pretty good idea how it works in other countries.  Mass   Jan-31-11 09:45 PM   #60 
                       - how often?  quaker bill   Feb-03-11 04:33 AM   #74 
                    - That makes no sense.  ProSense   Jan-31-11 12:13 PM   #49 
                       - Europe has high consumption tax  golfguru   Jan-31-11 08:37 PM   #58 
                          - "We should emulate Europe, they seem to be happier than" Are you  ProSense   Jan-31-11 08:51 PM   #59 
                             - I have read many places only Japan has a higher tax rate than US  golfguru   Feb-01-11 12:06 AM   #62 
  - Except noone would ever reach 60%  dbmk   Jan-31-11 09:50 AM   #41 
  - Why? If people make $6 millions and more, they certainly benefit of the infrastructure of the  Mass   Jan-31-11 10:01 AM   #43 
  - Remember, they're only paying 60% on income over $5M.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Feb-03-11 08:34 AM   #77 
  - Would either of these proposals be revenue neutral?  pnwmom   Jan-30-11 01:00 AM   #3 
  - The top 1 percent  ProSense   Jan-30-11 01:07 AM   #5 
     - I agree with raising rates on the higher earners. But I'm still wondering  pnwmom   Jan-30-11 01:10 AM   #7 
        - The purpose seems to be  ProSense   Jan-30-11 01:18 AM   #8 
        - Armchair budget makers floating random numbers  Telly Savalas   Jan-30-11 08:09 AM   #13 
  - Tax rates should be higher. Those were the rates when the US was still producing and leading the  craigmatic   Jan-30-11 01:09 AM   #6 
  - Agreed  Sherman A1   Jan-30-11 02:58 AM   #12 
  - It was a lot easier leading in production  Recovered Repug   Jan-31-11 05:34 PM   #55 
     - It also didn't hurt that we still had a big manufacturing base either.  craigmatic   Jan-31-11 10:01 PM   #61 
  - Couldn't possible have an opinion without some analysis of the effects. I'll pass. n/t  MrModerate   Jan-30-11 02:04 AM   #10 
  - Definitely needs to be much more progressive than it is now.  pampango   Jan-30-11 09:00 AM   #14 
  - Tax Rates  dugog55   Jan-30-11 10:04 AM   #16 
  - I agree that the more wealthy should pay more.  LiberalFighter   Jan-30-11 10:42 AM   #18 
  - I would learn from history  golfguru   Jan-30-11 10:52 AM   #20 
  - This makes no sense.  vaberella   Jan-31-11 04:43 AM   #33 
  - Neither, but it should be really progressive- and it should have very abreviated  old mark   Jan-30-11 11:19 AM   #21 
  - And this is why it's hard to do  ProSense   Jan-30-11 11:27 AM   #22 
  - But I still would not have capital gains  marlakay   Jan-30-11 03:14 PM   #27 
  - Neither. I say increase taxes on everyone, just more as you go up the line. n/t  vaberella   Jan-31-11 04:51 AM   #34 
  - I'm for any progressive tax system that increases our tax revenue-percentage of GDP ratio  Blasphemer   Jan-31-11 02:24 PM   #52 
  - "Ours is around 28% while it's 39% for the UK and 43-49% for Scandinavian countries. "  ProSense   Jan-31-11 02:43 PM   #53 
  - Proposal C - this variation  whosinpower   Jan-31-11 04:17 PM   #54 
  - What do those rate cuts mean? n/t  ProSense   Feb-02-11 03:44 PM   #71 
  - No body earning less than $50k/yr should pay federal income tax.  baldguy   Jan-31-11 08:06 PM   #56 
  - why have steps instead of a sloped line?  yurbud   Feb-01-11 01:05 AM   #63 
  - The steps are there for ease of understanding, more or less.  dbmk   Feb-01-11 04:34 AM   #64 
     - OK, a slope with a plateau. If you do your own taxes, you look it up in a table anyway  yurbud   Feb-01-11 10:54 AM   #65 
        - Except when having to put it into words to Mr and Mrs US. n/t  dbmk   Feb-01-11 11:47 AM   #66 
  - I think both the personal exemption and the standared deduction should raised high enough  yellowcanine   Feb-02-11 04:07 PM   #72 
  - The problem is that tax policy alone  quaker bill   Feb-03-11 05:03 AM   #75 
  - WTH..  GTurck   Feb-03-11 07:15 AM   #76 
  - I would like a flat tax with NO loopholes or tax shelters.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-03-11 01:48 PM   #78 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC