Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That's easy. 50% tax rates have worked before, so they can work again.

That's the economics sorted out. Do you want to move onto whether you think it's fair now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Heck, 80-90% top tax rates have worked before (the 1950s).

At the very least ~40% (39.5%) top tax rates worked splendidly during the 1990s and raising the rate to there from 36% (IIRC?) had little negative effects. I don't think raising the top rate, or creating a new top rate, at 50% will result in many issues, especially if it is simultaneously put in with a drop in payroll tax rates, which affect people who are more likely to consume goods (their marginal propensity to consume is far higher, obviously).

[DinoDoc]

That's easy. 50% tax rates have worked before, so they can work again.

No one actually paid those rates.

Do you want to move onto whether you think it's fair now?

And fairness doesn't enter into the equation wrt tax policy IMO. As the goal should be for the government to take the minimum amount of the populace's wealth from it as necessary to carry out its functions, however if I were in charge of policy on this matter the changes would look like something akin to the Bowles-Simpson plan.

[DinoDoc]

especially if it is simultaneously put in with a drop in payroll tax rates, which affect people who are more likely to consume goods (their marginal propensity to consume is far higher, obviously).

So under your plan we scrap Social Security?

[DaShi]

And fairness doesn't enter into the equation wrt tax policy IMO. As the goal should be for the government to take the minimum amount of the populace's wealth from it as necessary to carry out its functions, however if I were in charge of policy on this matter the changes would look like something akin to the Bowles-Simpson plan.

Please take offence, your opinion isn't very good. Under that reasoning, the government could take all it wants just from the top 1% and not tax the bottom 99% at all.

[DaShi]

Hey DD, how about using your own ideas on the topic and not just parroting conservative blogs? Just saying.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So under your plan we scrap Social Security?

Not at all, we modify it. Since the payroll taxes for SS have been raided for generations to pay for the general budget, we should make SS something paid out of the budget.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And fairness doesn't enter into the equation wrt tax policy IMO. As the goal should be for the government to take the minimum amount of the populace's wealth from it as necessary to carry out its functions, however if I were in charge of policy on this matter the changes would look like something akin to the Bowles-Simpson plan.

That in itself is a determination on "fairness". Why minimum amount of wealth?

[DaShi]

The decision of who to tax is just as important as how much. Anyone who omits equity from policy is either a moron or a dictator.

[DinoDoc]

That in itself is a determination on "fairness". Why minimum amount of wealth?

Because the government taking the product of a man's labor or wealth is "unfair" in and of itself. While it is a necessary evil to pay for a functioning society, it is still an "evil" and shouldn't be allowed to outweigh the benefits.

[DaShi]

:facepalm: It's like talking to a child.

[kentonio]

Because the government taking the product of a man's labor or wealth is "unfair" in and of itself. While it is a necessary evil to pay for a functioning society, it is still an "evil" and shouldn't be allowed to outweigh the benefits.

That is genuinely retarded. Taxes are a social contract which ensure that citizens are provided with services they could never supply themselves. Super rich aside, not even a millionaire could afford to provide for themselves services like policing, fire services, defence etc.

[Felch]

Taking the product of a man's wealth is perfectly fair, since that wealth is secured and protected by the government, and governments are established to protect our rights, including property. That's why I'm cool with a land value tax. As far as income taxes, they should be eliminated, and we should generate revenue from consumption taxes. It makes more sense to discourage spending than earning.

[kentonio]

But surely that would be a terrible idea? How does accumulated wealth aid a countries economy in any way? Consumption is what drives growth.

[giblets]

Because the government taking the product of a man's labor or wealth is "unfair" in and of itself. While it is a necessary evil to pay for a functioning society, it is still an "evil" and shouldn't be allowed to outweigh the benefits.

lol the marginal benefit of government spending should equal the marginal cost? Really insightful

Of course, the marginal cost of taxing rich people is lower because income has diminishing marginal utility

Progressive income taxes are better than flat income taxes