"...But what could a tax-the-rich plan actually achieve? As it turns out, quite a lot, experts say.... ...Raising their total tax burden to, say, 40 percent would generate about $157 billion in revenue the first year. Increasing it to 45 percent brings in a whopping $267 billion. Even taking account of state and local taxes, the average household in this group would still take home at least $1 million a year. If the tax increase were limited to just the 115,000 households in the top 0.1 percent, with an average income of $9.4 million, a 40 percent tax rate would produce $55 billion in extra revenue in its first year. That would more than cover, for example, the estimated $47 billion cost of eliminating undergraduate tuition at all the country’s four-year public colleges and universities, as Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed, or Mrs. Clinton’s cheaper plan for a debt-free college degree, with money left over to help fund universal prekindergarten. A tax rate of 45 percent on this select group raises $109 billion, more than enough to pay for the first year of a new $2,500 child tax credit introduced by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida. Move a rung down the ladder and expand the contribution of those in the 95th to 99th percentile — who earn on average $405,000. Raising their total tax rate to 30 percent from a quarter of their total yearly income would generate an additional $86 billion. That’s enough to cover the cost over eight years of repealing the so-called Cadillac Tax on high-cost health plans, which Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have endorsed. A 35 percent share produces $176 billion — roughly the amount that the Federal Highway Administration has estimated is needed each year to improve conditions significantly onmajor urban highways. Alternatively, those tax increases could be used to help reduce government borrowing: Some combination of those raises could go a long way toward wiping out this year’sestimated federal deficit of $426 billion. “Most economists today would agree that raising taxes modestly would bring in more revenue” without doing any serious damage to the economy, said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center. The big question is how much is too much, because at some point higher tax rates would discourage extra investment and work. All the Republican candidates share the party’s traditional opposition to raising taxes on the wealthy, arguing that it would ruin the economy by sopping up money that would otherwise be used to create jobs. Lowering taxes, they say, will unleash a torrent of economic activity that will in the long run spur growth and revenue. But most mainstream economists, including some on the conservative side of the divide, concede that even with optimistic projections about growth and spending cuts, the Republican plans would leave a whopping budget gap, requiring more borrowing, not less. Revamping the tax code along these lines would also decrease the share paid by those at the top..." http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/pers...x-increase-for-the-rich/ar-AAfwsmG?li=AAa0dzB
Should be revamped. Progressive income tax rates are discriminating (and you know how Libtards hate any kind of discrimination.... except against income), unfair and immoral.
Here is the problem. The bottom tax brackets are comprised of individuals who are inelastic to taxes meaning that you can raise taxes all you want on them and you can collect it. As you move higher, income becomes highly elastic and high wage earners can substitute away their wages into other forms to optimize their asset (future income cash flows). Because of this, raising taxes causes a substitution effect. In order for the government to maximize tax revenue they need to focus tax increases in areas where the supply of tax is highly inelastic. Remember tax payers are the supply curve, they are supplying tax revenue to the gov't. The government is the demand curve, they are demanding tax revenue. The elasticity is the shape of the slope of the supply. What makes tax optimization so effective in Europe are the high VAT taxes which are highly inelastic. Simply raising marginal tax rates at the high end will not produce the desired effect. On the flip side, simply cutting taxes will not create economic growth. It might, but it depends on where the tax cut is going and a lot of other variables. Cutting taxes in many cases can lower growth just as raising taxes in the right areas can stimulate growth. There are no black and white solutions here.
Federal Income taxes started few times in 1800s for a few years then stopped, at one point Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Then in 1913 it started at 1% and some was added depending on increased income up to 7%. What happens in this country is you allow them an inch, Congress takes so much more. I live in Texas, we have no state income tax and we have many companies move from California to Texas as we are very stable prices, cheap energy, housing and food. Do have to pay little more in real estate taxes as they need it for schools etc...We have many folks who retire from CA and sell their homes and relocate to Texas. At some point, one makes good in life, I don't see why should have higher taxes, at some point, relocating to foreign country and give up citizenship to U.S. becomes an option. Then you could come back to U.S. and get all the freebies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
then what do we do next time we run out of money? Raise taxes again? Just keep raising taxes until everybody has a job and a car in the garage and a chicken in the pot?
In a progressive tax system, everyone pays exactly the same tax on the same dollar earned as everyone else, regardless of their income. What is unfair about that? There is nothing unfair about a progressive tax on earned income, if by unfair you mean treating different earners differently. . But it is a bad idea, if you want people to have an incentive to make more money, to tax the last dollars earned at too high a rate. As you raise the tax rate on the last dollars earned by high income earners, you may discover unintended consequences. Depending on the tax code, high earners may take advantage of the code to lower their tax rate on their upper brackets of income. Higher earners have more flexibility than lower earners in this regard. There is, however, something profoundly unfair about taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned. Then, indeed, if one person's income is unearned and another's is earned, you can end up taxing the same dollar of income differently depending on whose income it is.
One should always address current realities before future ones. But once that is done, the future must not be ignored. There is such a thing as fiscal restraint. But more important than that is priority order.
But everyone is nice in Texas! The rest of us could have lower taxes too if we'd we'd stop behaving as though we were still fighting World War II. (In 1913 there were no aircraft carriers, no missile silos, and no CIA or NSA.) But then of course those who are busy getting ready for the WW II sequel would have to find something else to do.
USA wastes so much money, we give money to enemies and friends, why? They vote against us. Obama has expanded number of agencies and federal workers by 6% and Congress writes up so much pork to boot, need to reduce of them meeting to one month a year. Federal works never use to make the big bucks they make now, it was suppose to be that outside businesses made more and government made less but was secured, a trade-off. But for years you have had 100% disabled Vets and they get jobs for government, if they getting tax free money for being 100% through military, how can they work anywhere. And yet if you get whooping $700-950 from SSI, you can't get a job. Now I am a disabled Vet, I did work for government a number of years and I refused the money from the military as I was making very healthy living. Yes there are more weapons, and there is more in salary, 1913 $500,000 is $11,000,000 today, so 7% of 500k is $35,000 and todays taxes on 11 million is 38% $4,180,000 How many times you go to grocery store buying some fruit and family of six in front of you with two baskets of food, huge steaks and name brand foods and they whip out food stamp card to pay and laugh about it. In the 1960s if you were in a bad way, you were allowed 13 items and you had to know how to cook, you didn't go to grocery store, you went to government supply building, that gave you incentive to get better job or extra jobs. How come when foreigners come to USA, they open businesses? And yet lazy asses born here bitch they reduced their food stamps?
"fiscal restraint" otherwise called "austerity" is not an economic plan. It's what happens when you run out of money, and there are no more taxes to be raised.