wtf_man wrote on Jan 22, 2019, 11:13:
Beamer wrote on Jan 22, 2019, 10:50:
I've been saying it here forever, but going back to something similar to Eisenhower's tax plan seems like a no-brainer. It's so odd to me that so many people that would benefit from it, and have no hope of ever making $10MM a year, seem to think it's a bad idea.
It's easy to say "take" what doesn't belong to you.
That said... going back to 24 tax brackets, everyone paying higher taxes, tax laws have changed where property is on longer considered "depreciation"... you are smoking some good stuff.
If anything... it should be a flat one bracket tax with ZERO deductions for EVERYONE. (except of course poverty level being exempt)
Yes we would mostly all pay a little more... but the asshats in congress wouldn't be paying 15% while the rest of us are paying higher percentage brackets. Everyone would be paying the same percentage, which is fair.
You're thinking about it wrong. A flat tax is an absolute disaster, because it just gives the people with wealth, who ultimately decide who keeps wealth, absolute incentive to keep it for themselves. A marginal tax rate starts giving incentive not to.
Back when Eisenhower was president, you didn't have CEOs doing things like cutting 10% of the workforce then giving themselves a $10MM bonus for having done so. Why? Because they couldn't do that. They'd keep 9 cents for every dollar they paid themselves, ultimately making that raise, or bonus, somewhat worthless to them. But employees that kept 75 cents for every dollar saw much more value in every dollar paid to them, so salary, y'know, actually trickled down. The fantastically wealthy had little incentive not to, let's coin a term, "share the wealth."
"Belongs to" is a weird term. When you decide what to pay the people doing the actual work, you think it all belongs to you.