1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.
The last thing we want to do is give new revenue streams to our government. That's why I soured on the 9/9/9 plan. What's to stop congress from increasing a national VAT tax after it's established?
I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.
yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,
now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen
I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.
yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,
now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen
you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...
It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.
yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,
now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen
you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...
It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...
you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...
It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...
but you wouldn't just starve him either,
i think its far more complicated than that
the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.
I think we are going to need the extra tax revenue when we go to war with Iran in the next few years.
the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.
I think we are going to need the extra tax revenue when we go to war with Iran in the next few years.
without it, and a balanced budget amendment we couldn't go to war
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,
now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen
you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...
It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but you wouldn't just starve him either,
i think its far more complicated than that
the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
without it, and a balanced budget amendment we couldn't go to war
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan