--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <mainstream20...@...> wrote: > > Shemp, > So you advocate lowering income tax rates. At what rate of > income is tax revenue maximized ? Please don't insult our intelligence by > suggesting 0%. > > -Mainstream >
Let me answer that question in two ways: 1) My ideal federal income tax system would be a flat tax system: 17% flat tax rate and no payroll tax. 2) If our starting point was the current 6 tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%) I would raise the 10 and 15 brackets to 17% and lower the 25, 28, 33, and 35 brackets to 17%. And, of course, no payroll tax. ...and not to insult your intelligence but there is actually an answer that is "0%" and that is what they call the "Fair Tax" which as I understand it says no income tax, no payroll tax, and no corporate tax but a consumption tax on all goods and services. Not sure whether I advocate that yet. And I forget off hand what the rate would be. In addition to its income tax, Canada has a goods and services tax somewhat like the above. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts > > > for the rich because of this scenario? > > > > > > > > No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets > > (which, yes, affect the rich). > > > > Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue. > > > > The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues. > > > > > > > > > > > That would have made this figure > > > smaller per person, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the opposite would have happened. You know not of what you speak. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by > > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those > > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid. > > > > > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid > > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. > > > > > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war > > > costs put on the books properly. > > > > > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it. > > > > > > > > > > > Keep reading the post over and over again until you do. > > > > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > >
