Income taxes: The 47% of Americans who paid no income tax now pay 1%. Individuals who makes more than $200k per year, or any family that makes more than $250k per year see their rate climb from 35% to 38%. Individuals who make more than $500k per year, or any family that makes more than $600k sees their rate climb from 35% to 42% Capital Gains Tax: Taxed at the same rate as income, except for families who make less than $100k or individuals who make less than $75k. They will pay a 10% tax on capital gains. Corporate Tax: Corporate tax rate is lowered from 35% to 30%. All corporate loopholes, however, are closed. Social Security: The payroll tax cap (currently $106k) is lifted Reduce social security benefits for those with incomes in the top 30%. Raise the social security retirement age to 68 Estate Tax: Exempt first $1 million from taxation. Anything above that is taxed at 50% Glass-Steagall Re-enact the Banking Act of 1933 en toto Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Comprehensive plan to fight the ruling, by hook or by crook
Sounds good to me. But you probably suckered me and will now tell me that's from Bachmann's policy statements.
It's not anti-marriage. The cap for capital gains taxation breaking into "normal" brackets is 33% higher for families than it is for individuals. Compare that to income tax brackets - those are set at 25% and 20%. If anything, the proposal favors married couples. Math is hard. Anyway, would the capital gains tax as suggested here be a deal-breaker for you? Hah. No, this just happens to be the plan I talked my (incredibly right wing) family into over dinner yesterday. Their biggest right-wing issues: Everyone has to pay some sort of income tax, even if it's 1%; and the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered. I was willing to give on both of those, provided we close the corporate tax loopholes that companies like GE have exploited. We'll also have to allow some hydrofracking in the Dakotas and Appalachia, but in return for that I got $500 billion to implement a WPA-style wind power project through, mostly targeted for the heartland and offshore.
So your relatives want to risk my drinking water so that hicks and the Kennedys can have renewable energy? Tell them they need to give me something in return.
Do they not realize: 1) They're not paying any federal income taxes on their income up to a certain level either? 2) Even those paying no federal income taxes pay other taxes, including payroll taxes? This is such a pathetic, wingnut bogeyman issue.
No I would not! I mean what if he is nuts on foreign policy? Well it is your state that wants the fracking, So I guess you get more State taxes to buy cleaner water.
By the way, I would love to get rid of the Child credit, why should people with out children be punished for not wanting to over populate the world. Also get rid of the home interest income deduction, why punish people that want to rent? Renting allows for a more mobile work force that can move readily to where jobs are more available. PS, just letting the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire is good for me. That alone will bring about 600+ Million.
Too much. Either I'll go to $125k at 10%, or everything from $100k to $150k gets taxed at 17%. Long-term, they'll be giving you all the renewable energy you can use and plenty of jobs to clean up the environmental mess caused by the fracking. I can also guarantee that at least one wind turbine plant will be in your home region, and we'll make sure that Appalachia are used as a testing ground for some of the "schooling fish" wind farms: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/schooling-fish-offer-new-ideas-for-wind-farming Short-term, they'll be giving you and your hick neighbors tens of thousands of high-paying, union jobs.
They understood both those things. But were unmoved. I'm willing to get them their 1% tax on the poor in order to avoid a VAT and to secure their votes not only for rolling back the Bush tax cuts, but actually increasing taxes on those in the highest brackets. I didn't think to bring that up, but I guarantee it wouldn't have been worth the fight. Again, I didn't bring this one up, but there's no way they would have gone for it.
So if a candidate was able to get all of the above through, but had to make the 1% concession, would you not vote for him/her?
Would I vote for this candidate? No, not based on these answers which show a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Who is the candidate?
Only if the rates are low. Is the candidate proposing a 15% flat tax? Or are they proposing we tax capital gains at 28% or 35% (or God forbide 39%)?
Would I vote for this candidate? No. Why should an estate be taxed at a higher rate simply because someone is dead?
ACtually, my state's governor, and the Republican dominated legislature, isn't planning on taxing natural gas extraction. They're letting local communities consider it.. that way, Philadelphia can't benefit. That's not their stated plan, but it sure looks like it.
No it isn't. But it comes as no surprise that you've boiled it down to one sentance of stupidity. TBH, I feel silly for thinking you might have had a point worth discussing.
Huh? Perhaps if you could explain "halfway meritocracy" and how it applies to taxing an estate when someone dies I could decide whether or not I'm for it.