The devil, if there is one, would be in the details. Over 120 covers a lot of ground. Certainly I don't want to see taxes raised on anybody making less than that. I'm above that magic line so I'd have to cough up a little more. I'm OK with it as long as we could reintroduce some progressiveness back into the income tax structure that was lost during the Reagan years when we bumped the lowest marginal rate a little (2 %, I think it was) and drastically lowered and compressed all the upper brackets to virtually eliminate progressiveness in the income tax structure. I have argued that this move is at the foundation of our growing wealth inequality. The effects have been only partially undone in subsequent administrations, and the harmful effects continue to compound over time. We created a tax structure that had the effect of slowly destroying the middle class and enriching the wealthy without fundamental justification in terms of productivity and societal contribution. It was done by removing progressiveness in the tax structure. Somewhere there is a justifiable middle ground. We will find it if we go back to more brackets and gradually ramp up the marginal rates without becoming draconian. Somewhere near 40-5% would be a reasonable upper bound. I think most of us don't properly view a progressive tax structure. We tend to summarize it as I have to pay 35% of the dollars I earn to the government, but Bill gets by with only having to pay 28%, or whatever. That's a very incorrect way of viewing a progressive tax structure. In reality, Joe and Bill pay identical rates on the same dollars earned when those dollars are stacked up side by side. It's just that Joe's pile is higher. Well, i'm Joe in this instance, and I don't mind paying more on the part of my stack that exceeds Bills. But we need more brackets!!! We now have too few. AND we need to keep the rate on the top most bracket down to something reasonable. P.S. the reason that lowest bracket got bumped during Reagan's time is because Congress insisted that the Reagan tax overhaul be revenue neutral. There were so many folks in that lowest bracket that they only had to bump it a couple percent to make up for the huge tax cuts at the top end. The argument for cutting the top end drastically was put out to the public as "trickle down". If only we put more money in the hands of those at the top, it will benefit those at the bottom. The ones at the top were supposedly the ones creating most of the jobs! (The Kaufman Foundation later studied job creation. It turned out most new jobs are not created by the wealthy.) Also Reagan, who was an economics major at Whittier College --before he became a popular radio baseball announcer and a Hollywood B-film actor, tee-hee-- as President, bought into Art Laffer's blind guess, or was it Cheney, Rumfeld or Winniski's guess -- no one wants to take credit-- as to where we were on the curve. Reagan was convinced that not only would his tax cuts be revenue neutral, but they could very well increase revenues. He said later that the cuts not panning out as he had hoped, and the subsequent, huge deficits, were "the greatest disappointment" of his presidency. (Laffer later said he didn't recall that chicken salad lunch during the Ford administration with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wanniski. Laffer and Cheney were classmates at some point, and I suppose that is how they came to know one another.)
I noticed you sort of skipped the remedy for the mal distribution argument being to tax those with the assets. Why can't leftist admit the cronies have the assets and cause the mal distribution. I for one am not advocating taxing anyone... but if I were concerned about a mal distribution... I would go to where the assets are... correct? next. you are taking reagan out of context again... I thought we disabused of that b.s. in the past. it was not reagans 1981 tax cuts which were the problem, the problem with the deficit is the govt spending. a. income tax revenues went up after Regan's tax cuts. they were therefore by definition not neutral but positive. b. now I know you will find some leftist economist to create a fantasy model which says revenues would have been higher without Reagans or bush's tax cuts... but so what... one those are fantasy... and 2. tax revenues still went up as they have after all tax cuts. c. Even after the bush tax cuts... the top one percent paid more in revenue. d. upon review of the segments... tax cuts for anyone making less than about .5 million will improve income mal distribution. therefore tax increases on anyone but the top .o5% will create more mal distribution.
"...the problem with the deficit is the govt spending." The deficit/surplus is arithmetic, revenues minus expenditures. So it is incorrect to imply that the only source of, "problem with", the deficit is always only one of those variables.
Don't waste your time reading this nonsense. Basically it says states should have a punitively progressive income tax and give the money away to the poor.
I think we can at least trust the backstabbing lying weasels in the republican party not to raise marginal rates. They will look for a way to screw us by taking away deductions,etc. They did it in 1987 and created a massive real estate crisis. Then Clinton came in a few years later and raised the rates up again. If we fall for that bait and switch trick again, we should just all move to Greece or something.
when you see that tax revenues go up... it takes pretty convoluted thinking to argue that tax cuts cause the budget deficit. the best argument you can make is that the govt spending causes the tax revenues to increase. the answer is lets cut taxes and cap spending and see what happens. what if we just capped govt spending or cut it. what would happen
wow... that is pretty strong proof for tax cuts improving revenue it also shows that tax cuts are not responsible for income inequality... as we can see those receiving them no pay more of the income tax burden. as we cut taxes we can eliminate income inequality and still see tax revenues go up.. do you lefties and tax cut haters grasp what these charts is showing? do you see that red line after the 81 tax cuts... and the bush tax cuts... isn't it time to change your world view? cmon... its easy to allow your intellect to open up to the truth... just drop your love of anything most politicians and most academics or most in the media tell you if it costs more money or freedom. so we know that after tax cuts revenues go up as well as the share of the tax burden that those receiving the cuts paid. so how can you possible argue against tax cuts with real data?
I typed the above quickly sorry for the grammar and typos. Please don't let detract from the dispositive info on those charts posted by fhl.
A quick read of Rules for Radicals would easily answer this question...except for the Republicans' unexplainable (not really) reaction to some of the left wing's action.