Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your Ideal Income Tax Rates

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imagine if you had the power to adjust the income tax rates and only the income tax. You could not add or remove tax brackets you cannot change the ranges of income these taxes are over. You could not chance other taxes. You can also control federal spending. What would you set the brackets to?

Tax Rate Single Filing Married Filing
10% Up to $8,925 Up to $17,850
15% $8,926 - $36,250$17,851 - $72,500
25% $36,251 - $87,850$72,501 - $146,400
28% $87,851 - $183,250$146,401 - $223,050
33% $183,251 - $398,350$223,051 - $398,350
35% $398,351 - $400,000$398,351 - $450,000
39.6%$400,001 or more$450,001 or more

Keep in mind that there are a lot of income tax deductions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

For example the bottom 20% earners paid on average of 5% of their income in income tax. The 40-60% earners pay about 14%. The rich pay about 20%.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
this is boring
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:26:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Single bracket_____________ Union bracket___________ tax rate

[0 - 20k]________[0 - 30k]_________10%
(20k - 30k]______(30k - 50k]_______12.5%
(30k - 60k]______(50k - 100k]______15%
(60k - 100k]_____(100k - 175k]_____20%
(100k - 200k]____(175k - 350k]_____25%
(200l - 500k]_____(350k - 750k]_____30%
(500k - 1M]_____(750k - 1.5M]______35%
(1M - 5M]_______(1.5M - 5M]_______45%
(5M+]__________(5M+]____________60%

This would be contingent upon other tax changes and is not something that I'd actually like to see if the other changes are not made.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:26:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Single bracket_____________ Union bracket___________ tax rate

[0 - 20k]________[0 - 30k]_________10%
(20k - 30k]______(30k - 50k]_______12.5%
(30k - 60k]______(50k - 100k]______15%
(60k - 100k]_____(100k - 175k]_____20%
(100k - 200k]____(175k - 350k]_____25%
(200l - 500k]_____(350k - 750k]_____30%
(500k - 1M]_____(750k - 1.5M]______35%
(1M - 5M]_______(1.5M - 5M]_______45%
(5M+]__________(5M+]____________60%

This would be contingent upon other tax changes and is not something that I'd actually like to see if the other changes are not made.

missed the bracket limitation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:35:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:26:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Single bracket_____________ Union bracket___________ tax rate

[0 - 20k]________[0 - 30k]_________10%
(20k - 30k]______(30k - 50k]_______12.5%
(30k - 60k]______(50k - 100k]______15%
(60k - 100k]_____(100k - 175k]_____20%
(100k - 200k]____(175k - 350k]_____25%
(200l - 500k]_____(350k - 750k]_____30%
(500k - 1M]_____(750k - 1.5M]______35%
(1M - 5M]_______(1.5M - 5M]_______45%
(5M+]__________(5M+]____________60%

This would be contingent upon other tax changes and is not something that I'd actually like to see if the other changes are not made.

It looks like taxes would only increase if you are earning at least $1,000,000. The rest of your plan would consist of deep tax cuts. How would your tax rates look like if you couldn't reform other taxes?

We have a 1 trillion deficit so we can't be too liberal with tax cuts. I also think a 60% tax rate on the super rich will just drive them away from this country.

For example Austria and Belgium only have top tax rates of 50%, France, UK and Germany 45%.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:07:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:19:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:42:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

You have a good plan, that would make any libertarian proud. There are some problems though, phasing out Social Security and Medicare this way and in so short of a time would probably be impossible.

-----

1. Have a flat 7% personal income tax.
2. Have a flat 7% corporate income tax, that is territorial (only taxes earnings made in America).
3. Allow workers to divert their portion of the payroll tax into their own personal retirement account; so we can partially privatize Social Security while making the entitlement program solvent.

All while we eliminate the alternative minimum tax, gift taxes, estate taxes; and leave capital gains, dividends, savings and interest all untaxed. So we incentivize savings and investment, which leads to more capital formation and economic growth.

America would have a very competitive economy, with robust economic growth, more upward mobility, as well as a thriving middle class.

Yeah these are deep tax cuts, but we could still balance the budget, while maintaining programs like Medicare and Social Security.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dan4reason, you want to tax me 25% are you out of your goddamn mind?!

I don't think there should even be an income tax let alone 25%, you are insane.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:58:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:54:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Dan4reason, you want to tax me 25% are you out of your goddamn mind?!

I don't think there should even be an income tax let alone 25%, you are insane.

I don't understand this response. Current Federal income tax rates are on a sliding scale, and range from less to well above 25%.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poorer.

When the tide rises all ships rise with it. You want to destroy everything and bring nothing up. You probably would bulldoze every skyscraper just to say you have the biggest building on the block.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:09:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:01:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poorer.

When the tide rises all ships rise with it. You want to destroy everything and bring nothing up. You probably would bulldoze every skyscraper just to say you have the biggest building on the block.

Hmm... disagreed on both ends. Indeed, there are severe income disparities between classes, but they are not due to tax rates (although nuances of taxation do play a role), and altering tax rates (especially to the exaggerated degree that Dan suggested) would not fix the problem even a little bit.

On the other hand, although I'm not entirely for income redistribution (not in the forced and immediate sense, anyway), I do believe that wage inequality is a severe problem that needs reconciliation.
Subutai
Posts: 3,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about 0%?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:21:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:26:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Single bracket_____________ Union bracket___________ tax rate

[0 - 20k]________[0 - 30k]_________10%
(20k - 30k]______(30k - 50k]_______12.5%
(30k - 60k]______(50k - 100k]______15%
(60k - 100k]_____(100k - 175k]_____20%
(100k - 200k]____(175k - 350k]_____25%
(200l - 500k]_____(350k - 750k]_____30%
(500k - 1M]_____(750k - 1.5M]______35%
(1M - 5M]_______(1.5M - 5M]_______45%
(5M+]__________(5M+]____________60%

This would be contingent upon other tax changes and is not something that I'd actually like to see if the other changes are not made.

That's surprising, I actually like this tax bracket setup.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:11:45 PM, Subutai wrote:
How about 0%?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:06:10 PM, DanT wrote:
10% flat tax

...with absolutely no exceptions nor write-offs whatsoever and required vote for 50% of its spending allocation.

Perhaps, make that 15%.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Hmmm, I wonder how much people would voluntarily give in taxes. Probably less then we would voluntarily give in charity which is very little.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:17:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:15:53 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Hmmm, I wonder how much people would voluntarily give in taxes. Probably less then we would voluntarily give in charity which is very little.

I think more people would voluntarily give to charity if they weren't taxed so much :P
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:31:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:07:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

A demonstration is shown in the graph below:
http://assets.motherjones.com...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:45:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:19:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:50:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:31:41 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:07:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

A demonstration is shown in the graph below:
http://assets.motherjones.com...

Name a country with highly progressive taxes and w/ high levels of economic growth?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:51:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:34:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
I prefer a flat rate tax (probably around 10%) for all income earners.

I will repeat a response I gave earlier to this kind of claim.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:53:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:50:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:31:41 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:07:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.
15%->13%
25%-> 20%
28%-> 32%
33%-> 40%
35%-> 45%
39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

A demonstration is shown in the graph below:
http://assets.motherjones.com...

Name a country with highly progressive taxes and w/ high levels of economic growth?

Forgot, US is the most progressive in the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:45:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:19:41 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.

My response is implying no income tax at all, rather, a National sales tax.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:58:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
9% personal income tax
9% business tax
9% national sales tax
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:59:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:58:18 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
9% personal income tax
9% business tax
9% national sales tax

You made me hungry for pizza.