Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 a graduated income tax; taxation that is of a greater percent to those who have higher income. (ex: <$20000/year tax=1%, 20-40k/year=3% 40-60k/year=6% 60-80k/year=8% 80-100k=10% 100-150k=13% 200k=17% 400k=25%, etc Not sure this particular graduation would work, but I agree that something needs to be worked out. I'd quite like something that worked on a continous level - i.e. you don't find yourself at one end of a bracket. I know I'd be annoyed if I earned, say, £20500/annum and got into the higher tax bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 oh, of course it wouldn't, dave. i was just throwing around random numbers. youre the mathematics genius around here, perhaps you should make one And you're using this as some kind of subtle political sarcasm to say... no, not in the least. it works better that way, buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression that the US opporates under a graduated income tax already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I'm by no means a genius and my strengths definately aren't in economics/business. But common sense tells me something like an exponential curve with some kind of cap at 30% would do the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression that the US opporates under a graduated income tax already. Most democratic countries do, but there are ways around it, especially for the big spenders at the top. The US Tax Code is like the UK Tax Code: extremely complex, with lots of loopholes to "help" the large corporations get larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression that the US opporates under a graduated income tax already. we don't. we need one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 we don't. we need one ? Got linkage? I was about to say I'd be amazed if you didn't have some sort of graduated income tax, but just about nothing surprises me with the US these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Weren't the tax cuts applied for all Americans, but with much greater percentage cuts for the very rich? The income tax would have to be graduated if they're making distinctions there, and if it wasn't before, the new changes make it so. Ah, a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Yes, we have a graduated income tax rate. Reagan flattened it somewhat and there are always arguments as to what is "fair" or "best". Some people argue for a flat tax - even a sales tax, which would hit the poor and middle class terribly. The arguement is for simplicity, but a graduated tax isn't complicated. Taxes are pretty simple, until you become wealthy, then you need to apply for all the loopholes to avoid paying tax. Best thing is to eliminate the loopholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 somewhat a bit more than somewhat and he totally screwed us over with the free trade acts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 exactly, between outsourcing millions of jobs, turning a 300 billion dollar surplus into a 200 billion dollar deficit, spending upwards of nearly 200 billion dollars for a country that doesnt want to be free, and giving huge tax breaks to people who dont pay taxes...i'd say bush has done a superior job...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Most democratic countries do, but there are ways around it, especially for the big spenders at the top. The US Tax Code is like the UK Tax Code: extremely complex, with lots of loopholes to "help" the large corporations get larger. That's what I thought he might be getting at. So I'm really confused by what this means: we don't. we need one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 We currently have 6 different "brackets" of income tax. http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I'm not voting in the US, but I would assume one great reason would be that he's not Bush??? Do you have a problem with Bush? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 We currently have 6 different "brackets" of income tax.http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325 budullewraagh is really being confusing. I'm still convinced he is trying to make some political statement through all this along the lines of what dave said before. Do you have a problem with Bush?If so' date=' why?[/quote'] It's really the same problems everyone is having with Bush: can't speak in public, poor economic policy, poor foreign policy, started war with Iraq etc. If you get ambitious, you can look through here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 exactly, between outsourcing millions of jobs, This is actually the only thing Bush is NOT responsible for. Outsourcing is made possible more by technology (robotics, e-commerce, etc) than by cheaper labor.turning a 300 billion dollar surplus into a 200 billion dollar deficit' date='[/quote']Next to the unnecessary deaths in his greedy wars, this hurts the most. Reaganomics all over again! spending upwards of nearly 200 billion dollars for a country that doesnt want to be free' date='[/quote']Forget the freedom part, Bush is campaigning on being the best man to finish the war on terrorism. The things he has done in this area are the exact WRONG things to do to accomplish this. He has made us more vulnerable to attack here at home, has increased the number of terrorists dramatically, and has insured that we have fewer allies to call upon by antagonizing other countries with his paranoia. and giving huge tax breaks to people who dont pay taxes...The same people who are profiting most by the war in Iraq, and who are now paying the least to support it. And it's going to get worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Do you have a problem with Bush?If so' date=' why?[/quote']OMG! Read the whole thread before posting in the thread, please. budullewraagh is really being confusing. I'm still convinced he is trying to make some political statement through all this along the lines of what dave said before.I think this goes back to what he said about the system they used during the Great Depression. Perhaps it had a lot more brackets with a gentler curve in percentages. Heaven knows we could use a tax system that's not so intimidating. Many people believe the IRS prefers the obscurity the present system provides due to the fear factor. Did you know that you can get 50 different companies to do your taxes, plus figure them yourself, plus get the IRS to calculate them and you'll get 52 completely different answers? Are they teaching you that kind of math in school these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 altough i hate Bush to death i have to admire his tenacity and level of optimism in face of all the negative reports given by US academics . intel community , and basically everyone in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 The same people who are profiting most by the war in Iraq, Exactly how does that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Exactly how does that happen?Let's say that you are Vance Coffman, the CEO of Lockheed Martin (up until last month). You make an immense pile of cash every year in salary, bonuses and incentives (top bracket, definitely). You make missiles and planes for the military. Back in 1995, Lockheed had merged with Martin Marietta and bought a slew of other companies, including Comsat, leaving it $12 billion in debt. In 1997, they brought you in as CEO and you promoted the CFO to president, did some insider trading, sold off Comsat, and a few years later, you gave millions in soft money to get Bush into office. He gave you some incredible tax breaks and made you the world's largest defense contractor and the largest arms exporter. So now you supply all kinds of goodies to help overthrow one tiny little pre-beaten dictator, making a fortune from American taxes, of which you pay a lesser amount because of George W's two tax breaks for the richest Americans. Oh, and guess what? There are more terrorists than ever now! It looks like your marketing efforts have really paid off. Because what makes more money for a defense contractor and arms exporter? TERROR! INSTABILITY! WAR! And the biggest laugh of all is that you make planes and missiles which are supposedly being used to fight terrorists, who work in small, secretive, compartmented operations cells, practically immune to such weapons. It's like trying to kill termites in your house with a hammer. A really big, multi-billion dollar hammer. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 first, let me state that i agree that bush is the worst thing that has happened to the world since stalin. Only a mindless fool would make a statement like that. Lets see who likes Bush..............and who doesn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Only a mindless fool would make a statement like that.Lets see who likes Bush..............and who doesn't LOL, that's funny. It's still a four point race with 6 points for "other" and "undecided". And a month and a half for things to escalate in the Middle East. You really think Bush has the best approach over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Only a mindless fool would make a statement like that. Lets see who likes Bush..............and who doesn't wow, that was the poorest support for an opinion i've seen in awhile. first, it is 4 years old. second, people dont live in a great deal of the places you mentioned. well, perhaps 5-6 hicks with shotguns per region in a bunch of those areas... wait, did i see that the nevada desert, home of many nuclear tests that date as recently as the 1970s (if i am not mistaken) is "bush country"? i now declare that territory null and void because if you live there in the middle of nowhere whatsoever and with the incredibly high amounts of radiation, you must be out of your mind. third, gore won the popular vote, so go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 wow' date=' that was the poorest support for an opinion i've seen in awhile. first, it is 4 years old. second, people dont live in a great deal of the places you mentioned. well, perhaps 5-6 hicks with shotguns per region in a bunch of those areas... wait, did i see that the nevada desert, home of many nuclear tests that date as recently as the 1970s (if i am not mistaken) is "bush country"? i now declare that territory null and void because if you live there in the middle of nowhere whatsoever and with the incredibly high amounts of radiation, you must be out of your mind. third, gore won the popular vote, so go figure[/quote'] What does nuclear testing have to do with Bush? Gore won the popular vote by taking all the large cities.....Get it? I can give you more reasons to support Bush, than you for supporting Kerry. Counties won by Gore: 677 Counties won by Bush: 2436 Population of counties won by Gore: 127 Million Population of counties won by Bush: 143 Million Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 States won by Gore: 19 States won by Bush: 29 Source: USA Today Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. National Popular Vote for Gore 50,996,116 National Popular Vote for Bush 50,456,169 Electoral Votes for Gore 266 Electoral Votes for Bush 271 Source: AP 12/22/2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Bush ia a war-mongerer. He is also a redneck. He is also stupid. He is also a dangerous man to be leading the 'free' world in dangerous times. He does not appear to have extensive knowledge of history, or at least his actions seem to lead me to that conclusion. He, with his Dad and Brother, helped rigged the last election. He is very right wing. He helps his rich mates and doesn't give a stuff about the poor or the environment. He has no respect for other religions or political doctrines. He believes you can forcefully instill democracy in other countries via violence. He rarily finishes what he starts. He screwed my counrty with a bodgy FTA. He has done next to nothing for the general scientific community. He operates on the politics of fear. He has made the terrorist threat worldwide worse, not better. He lets his cronies run the show. He has distanced the American population from the rest of the world by his actions. and worst of all; He has an insane ability to make half of your counrty think that he is a good leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now