In this election, there's been so much arguing over whether or not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 dollars or more, and I don't think we should. I don't think that people with small businesses that finally become successful and hit that 250k mark deserve to be taxed even higher than they already are. So I agree with McCain in that aspect. But I also think that the government does need to bring in a little bit more tax revenue. So, while I do have a problem with taxing people making 250k more, I don't have as much of a problem with taxing people making much more money at higher rates. I don't think that people making 250k a year should be classified along with millionaires and billionaire. So isn't the obvious solution to change the brackets that we are currently using? I would propose making the highest bracket at 1.5 million. What do you guys think?

1. Eliminate gross government overspending.
2. Kick out legislators who vote for pork bills.
3. Punish those responsible for bureaucratic spending wastes.
4. Let everyone keep more of their money.

yeah, i think the primary goal should be to cut spending.

though by raising the bracket would result in overall drop in revenue, assuming the rates are the same.

but yeah, we should be looking at cutting spending a bit more

Of course we need to cut spending, but i don't think that alone helps us out of a ten trillion dollar national debt.

But no the rates wouldn't stay the same, I'd keep it at 28% (or maybe lower) on the 250k bracket, but raise it to something like 35% on the highest bracket.

Of course we need to cut spending, but i don't think that alone helps us out of a ten trillion dollar national debt.
Not directly, but now that I think about it, if government spending were to underperform as compared to received tax revenue, the monetary difference could be used to begin paying off the national debt.

Though that would likely be a very, veerrryyyy slow process.

The issue is the the level of capital flight and the whole laffer curve thing.
I really doubt the US is on the right side of that though, increasing the rates should see a net increase in revenue.

The only issues are the extent to which cutting spending will also reduce revenues as well, but it's certainly not going to be more then is saved by not spending.

Also, what the fuck is with that trickle down bullshit?

The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy can possibly help with is increasing private investment.
But by the same token, it's probably party to blame for overvaluing of equities.

Business tax cuts make a lot more sense, where they're actually part of the program.

But:
Tax cuts to lower and middle income earners are more useful when there's rising demand deficient unemployment (like now).
Furthermore, people are in so much debt now most such tax cuts, particularly if they're lump sum, just go straight onto paying it of - which is killing two birds with one stone:
- it means not only that people have more money to spend after paying off debts due to the reduction in interest payments as well as increases in income
but...
- paying off debts sooner rather then later means lenders are in a less precarious position.

I don't trust the bastard at all, but Obama's tax policy is far better then Mccains for this reason.

George W. Bush pledged not to raise taxes. His administration has spent more $ than every previous adminstration combined! Where the fuck is that money coming from? He borrowed it and our national debt is growing astronomically, especially with intrest we cannot pay. Those my friends are taxes pure and simple. When the president vows to cut taxes but mandates federal programs without funding them, No Child Left Behind, it is the states who must pick up the slack. How do they do that, by raising taxes. State taxes to up, local property taxes go up. It's all a con game. The big bucks invested by Federal, State and private pensions and mutual funds $ in AIG was the reason the bailout was funded. How will we get that money back? Oh, the market will return and then we'll sell taxpayers share and recoop our losses. BULLSHIT! Greenspan, about the same time he was fighting regulation of investment banks stopped publishing the m3 report. That details how much us $ are out there floating around. Now we just print willy nilly ( ask your grandparents) and should we not be able to blackmail other countries holding our debt the dollar will sink in near future. Right now China which holds almost a majority of our debt is calling for another currency to replace the dollar. So, on national tax programs, I see nothing from McCain that differs from Bush. I see nothing from Obama that differs from Clinton. Meanwhile American co's are incorporating overseas in countries that offer tax havens so they can avoid paying US taxes. How patriotic is that? Nationalism does not mean as much as saving a $.

George W. Bush pledged not to raise taxes. His administration has spent more $ than every previous adminstration combined!

Bullshit.

Of course we need to cut spending, but i don't think that alone helps us out of a ten trillion dollar national debt.

Cutting spending enough so that we are actually operating within out means is a hell of a good place to start though.

If we dropped the income tax completely the government would still have close to the same revenue they had in 2000. If we could cut government back down to that size(which was arguably bloated already), that chunk of money would be a great place to start paying it back down.

I know a lot of people believe that Obama is the candidate that can fix the economy, but unless he is actually going to really change something, which I have yet to hear of anything other than making the government bigger, he isn't going to help the situation at all.
...and for the sheep, I am in no way implying that McCain can fix the economy.

btw, im a beginner when it comes to stuff like this, but may i ask where the united states gets their revenue from other than tax and loans?

I'm pretty sure loans aren't classified as revenue.

They get income from taxes other then income taxes though.

Aside from income taxes and foreign debt, my best guess would be that much revenue at the federal level comes from tariffs (import taxes), and at all levels, sales taxes, tickets, licenses, permits, etc.

well we shouldnt even have an income tax in the first place. Democrats spend alot and raise taxes, so the debt doesnt go up as much. Republicans spend the same as democrats and keep taxes lower so the debt gets bigger.
http://images.mydd.com/images/user/1360/Natl_Debt_Chart_2004.gif
Keep in mind the number on the Y-axis is the increase PER YEAR, its not a static number. And the thing at the bottom below the graph is false and misleading.

Had to find where I had read Bush spent more $ than all other prior adminstrations combined. to counter Dichromates elegant "bullshit."
Bush has borrowed more than all previous 42 Presidents. Combined.

eteraz.org — According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

Borrowed - spent, potato - potatoe. I believe those figures were only untill 2005. Remember Bush inherieted a healthy economy.

Remember when Steve Forbes was a serious candidate for president (1996)? His #1 issue was tax reform and installing a flat tax. Everybody jumped on that bandwagon when they saw the traction the public was giving Forbes. As soon as Forbes was out of the race so was any further discussion of tax reform. Federal Income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to get out of debt created by defense spending in WW2. It soon became entrenched and now is just taken for granted as owed. Unless you can influence a politician to get new tax law enacted to save your particular bacon.

We are trying to decide an election on the economy but we are all too stupid to realize that this problem has been around since the great depression. A bandage administered by FDR just prolonged a huge problem. Government regulation and taxation caused this problem, a capitalistic, free market, society can not strive with the government trying to regulate the economy to that extent. Both Parties have been guilty of it, but most notably the democratic party chasing socialistic ideals. Anybody in Washington will tell you that it is naive to think this problem can boil down to only one presidency. Even Clinton who left out country in great economic status admitted on live television that if he had kept a closer eye on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then we would be having the problems we are having now. Also back to taxing anybody just over $200,000 income (look it up it is just over 200 not 250). For a small business this isn't that much after you pay employees, equipment, maintenance, and then taxes, the owner is not making that much. This will lead to small businesses hiring less people causing the unemployment rate to rise even higher. I also have no problem with taxing the rich a little more but I'll be damned if they take money out of my pay check for "Wealth Redistribution" so that someone can sit on their ass and get a check every month because big government thinks I make too much money.

this.