Isn't this whole TAX CUT thingy just a buncha malarky? Reduce to 15% from 35%! The rich already don't pay taxes. Why do they need tax cuts?

Would it surprise you to know I don't have a clue ele? I don't. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday! :)

They pay taxes on all those things. Plus they keep people working.

If they pay no taxes at all ALREADY how is a tax cut relevant? It's just window-dressing. Thank you for your reply m2c. This post was edited by RosieG at November 25, 2016 6:55 AM MST

Exactly....why does anyone care IF they already pay nothing?

Because they don't pay nothing. They in fact pay the bulk of the income tax collected in the US.  Of course they also have the bulk of the income so should pay the tax.

@M2C -- Why?

On what fundamental principle do you base your claim that current tax rates are too high?

What's the "right" number?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

I actually think the tax rate should be the same for everyone. But I would not change things like deductions and exemptions and I would not remove the earned income tax credit either. 

@m2c -- So, having differential tax rates for peoplw who buy houses (versus those who don't), or donate to charity (versus those who don't), or who buy a 6,000 lbs+ GVWR SUVs to haul their clients around in (as opposed to those who buy sensible high-fuel-economy sedans) is A-OK with you. But having a progressive tax rate because an extra $5 in tax to a thousadaire is meal he/she can't buy, while an extra $5 in tax to a billionaire is too little to notice is NOT OK with you?

You're going to have to give me a detailed explanation for that one to convince me your basis for that view is something other than "The Rich are Special and Deserve Their Privileges" (i.e. Authoritarian f***tardery).

The thousandaire would not be paying $5....compared to the billionaire  as there is at last a 10% difference between the twos base. Which means at a tax rate of 10% the thousandaire pays 50¢ and the billionaire pays $5.  That is what happens with percentages. It adjusts with the base amount. This post was edited by my2cents at November 25, 2016 2:06 PM MST

@m2c -- Sorry, your last reply was utterly incoherent.

I am not surprised by this. You seem to be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid the basic question (What SHOULD tax rates be and why?)

I am also not surprised you are doing these mental gymnastics. Actually attempting to answer the question would prbably lead you to the realization that your basis for that is no more sophisticated than "Rich People Deserve Their Privileges" or "Dabgum Gubmint Can't Do Nuttin Right Nohow, So The Beast Must Be Starved!" And you're not prepared to admit that, so you'll dance about in the minutiae of marginal rates, deductions, comparative utility, etc. without ACTUALLY ANSWERING the question.

It's not, on the surface, a complex question. What SHOULD tax rates be and why?

Now, do you have an answer, or are you going to continue to tap-dance around it because you HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION for why tax rates should be lower than they currently are?

Sorry if you are having problems understanding basic math. The formula (I learned in  grade school) is Rate * Base = Part
So if the thousandaire makes 100,000 after deductions means and we assume 10% tax rate....100,000*10%=$10,000 taxes paid
The billionaire makes $1,000,000 after deductions...1,000,000*10%=$100,000 taxes paid. 
Now if we apply that to your $5 example we have the 50¢ and $5 tax payments I mentioned above. Again basic math. 

@m2C -- I have no problem with basic math. With meaning to sound like a braggart, I submit I'm probably FAR better at it than you (I can do most basic 4-function calculator math in my head, thanks to decades of practice).

Your post above was at least somewhat coherent, and I understand the point.

But you completely misunderstood my point. The problem with a flat tax is the marginal utility of the money. If a poor person earns $100 in income and has $5 taken out, in terms of the MARGINAL UTILTY of the money, that's a missed meal. If a billionaire makes an additional $100 in income, and has $5 taken out in tax, it amounts to a round-off error on the person's financial statements.

Now, if you are arguing that a flat income/FICA tax with deductions/exemptions/etc. eliminated might be more fair than our current system, where the EFFECTIVE tax rate on the very rich is quite low (often lower than people earning much less), I agree with you. I think the math is indesputible.

But that's not what you're arguing.

And you still HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE F***ING QUESTION?

Are you EVER going to answer the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED YOU?

I did answer your question the rate should be 0%.... That is not hard to understand. Now if you are not happy with that answer....you just have to get over it.  If we must go with a flat tax then it would be 10%. Also I said after deductions so if the poor guy would not pay that $10 until he makes money over the deductions. 

@m2c -- No, you didn't.

Saying the overall tax rate shold be 0% is simply stupid. Governments need revenue to function. They cannot function with a 0% tax rate.

Saying the INCOME tax rate should be 0% might be a nuanced view, if you could state why taxing something else would be fairer, more efficient, less prone to avoidance, etc. You didn't. You simply said "I wanna replace it with the 'Fair Tax'" while showing nearly complete ignorance what the "Fair Tax" entails, nor explaining why the "Fair Tax" is more "fair", other than the fact a right-winger proposed it and it's got the word "fair" in its name.

Your choice of a 10% flat (presumably income tax) is similarly nonsensical. Why not 9.9%? Why not 10.2% You are simply choosing 10% because it sounds good in our base-10 number system (and I guess there are religious traditions about tithing 10%). Again, you offer no reason for the number and no justication why it's better than any other number.

I'm sorry your desperate need to defend the tax ideas you believe are in keeping with your ideology prevents you from understanding you haven't answered the most fundamental question about tax policy. It's the question I asked you. What SHOULD the OVERALL tax rate be and WHY?

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. Admitting one's own ignorance can be the first step in learning. But arguing details about deductions, or sales vs. income taxes, or any other minutiae DOES NOT ANSWER the question. It's just you saying "I like tax policy X...because I like it!"

I like the Fair Tax. I did explain that it replaces the income tax with a sales tax. If you want more info than that go to Fairfax.org.
As far as the 10%...I say if it is good enough for God it is good enough for the government. Of course you don't like that but I don't care. I am not interested in debating the exact science of tax policy....I am in no position to change it and neither are you...so why waste the time and effort? 

Why don't you? That is how this question is answered.  That is your job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/no-the-rich-do-not-pay-all-the-taxes-2013-12 This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 25, 2016 12:42 PM MST

I know of the breakdown of the taxes the rich pay, do you? I also know that the rich pay taxes.

@m2c -- Which you should be OPPOSING, because you have advocated for a flat-rate tax plan.

Just because one of the Special (Rich White Christian) People proposes a graduated progressive tax plan does NOT make his plan any more worthy than one proposed by one of TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL COMMIE DEMOCRAPS.

Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite....;-D...

Yes my preference would be a flat tax if we are modifying our current tax code. But I will accept a across the board cut if that's what I can get.

If I were completely in charge, we would have the Fair Tax which is not an income tax but a national sales tax. But I would not tax things like food and other necessities. (The current proposal gives a monthly rebate for this)

@m2c - Thank you for proving my point.

You have NO COHERENT IDEA what taxes should be, how they should be applied, why some taxes work better than others, etc.

For example, if you've actually studied the details of the Fair Tax, you'd realize that (unless you're quite wealthy) your tax burden would go UP under the "Fair Tax"

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/trouble-fairtax

Your analysis of tax policy boils down to:

Proposed by Good Real American Right-Winger: Good!

Proposed by STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL COMMIE DEMOCRAP: Bad!

My idea of what income tax should be is simple 0% for everyone.