dlafever

I would think we are all less naive than to believe this is anything but a politcal ploy. The estimated $200M tax to be collected under this plan is but a drop in the bucket of the $27B annual budget deficit California is enjoying.

SW20S

This is both true and not true. Of course we do have an expenditure problem, but we also have a tax code that unfairly burdens the middle and lower class and unfairly benefits those with high and complex incomes. Hey, I benefit from it...my effective tax rate is about 7%, Uncle Sam pays half my S Class payment and half of all its fuel, maintenance etc but it is totally insane that I have the ability to loophole my income to where I only pay 7% in federal taxes where a teacher making $80,000 was to pay 22% of their income in taxes. That's completely crazy.

If you could show me that reductions in spending could reduce the tax burdens of most normal Americans I would be all for it.

carlosinseattle

I went bald a few years back and have missed going to the barbershop. I feel like I'm back in, and I get to keep my $25 in my pocket...THANKS GUYS!!

MB2timer

I don’t react positively to fair share. If you earn $1million, and have an effective rate of 7%, that is a tax burden of $70,000.00. The $80,000.00 teachers paying 22% is a tax burden of $17,600. In dollar terms, 1 or both of you are not paying your fair share. My suspicion is that you both are paying more than your fair share. Unless every income earner pays the exact same dollar amount, it’s not fair, in this case fair is defined by equal.

As for reductions in spending, there is a reduction strategy called the penny plan. Every federal organization that submits a budget, would have to reduce the next year”s budget by 1%/yr, and continue to do so until a surplus was realized. Then, apply that surplus to the National Debt, and pay it down, until it is paid off. We can’t have guys like Fauci being paid more than the President. We also can’t have bloated bureaucracies growing in cost under their own volition. That’s an inherent weakness of any bureaucracy.

SW20S

You don't because a fair share would cost you a lot. There is no reason why there should be an upper limit in terms of dollars paid in for taxes. We should close the loopholes that allow high earners to shield their income from taxes. If that teacher can pay 22%, I can pay 22%. Thats the nature of a progressive tax, higher earners pay a higher percentage. This is how it was for many years until tax break after tax break were passed that benefited me and not teachers. The solution that is presented is to increase the burden on the teacher and further ease the burden on me and thats just totally crazy. A flat tax where everybody pays the same is again going to put more burden on the teacher and less on me. That may be good for me but its bad for society.

Why not? We have to be able to attract talent. The Government needs to be able to pay somewhat in the ballpark of what that talent would be paid in the private sector. Fauci is a pretty credentialed and experienced doctor...You don't think he could get a job in the private sector making more than he made at the NIH? Way more.

The President makes $400,000. If we won't pay anybody more than $400,000 we're missing out on a lot of top talent. Make them all pay 30% of their income in taxes like everybody else and we'll be fine lol

JohnLane

Steve...

Do some math for how many $$$ may come in from those who have made good choices (or inherited them) annually at 30% tax rate.

Be sure to factor into your math how many of those big $$$ earners will ‘Nope out’ as those of means are able to decide to MOVE somewhere that tax rates are more reasonable.

The only way to really solve for a balanced budget is to get ‘Our friends in government’ to reduce what they spend. History tells us they are loath to do so.

Donnymac

Absolutely basic and true.

SW20S

How does making good choices or inheriting good choices mean somebody shouldn't have to pay the same tax rates as people who earn less money? Are you saying that everybody who makes less than $1M a year has made bad choices? Come on lol.

And those big earners, they're not going to leave the country because they have to pay their fair share of taxes. They won't go anywhere else where they won't have to pay more taxes, their businesses and incomes are here. This whole "don't tax high earners and corporations because they will leave" is just scare tactics to try and convince lower earning people its okay that people who make high 6 and 7 figures+ don't have to pay anywhere near the same % of taxes as they do.

Of course spending also needs to be reigned in...but this is a fundamental problem that also needs to be solved. People who earn high incomes should be made to pay the same % of their income as people who earn lower incomes.

MB2timer

The flat tax is a workable idea. But it doesn’t solve the problem of fairness, which you haven’t addressed. No one should be punished with tax policy. Being punished with tax policy is inherently unfair. There are more Only Fans “models” that are millionaires than you can imagine. Under the assumption that pornography is a bad choice, then yes there are those who have risen to that level of wealth who have made bad choices. Many people who make less than 1 million make bad choices. Airline pilots are notorious for that very behavior. There is a large swath of our society that is financially illiterate. There is a large swath of our society that is emotionally and psychologically illiterate. When those swaths overlap, it’s disastrous. Add in incompetent politicians and bloated bureaucracy, you end up with previously shining cities becoming hellholes all over our country.
And yes, Fauci in particular should NOT be making more than the US President. We should NOT be trying to attract talent with money. We should value service, and suitability for government positions.

SW20S

Sorry, this whole argument is ridiculous lol. Whether or not you think someone has made “bad choices” has no bearing on what they should be taxed. People should be taxed a percentage of their income, and that percentage should not go down the more someone makes after a certain point. The tax code is already there, the loopholes just have to removed so that high earners can’t shield their income from taxes in ways lower earners can’t.

As for the whole “people who earn less than $1M make poor choices and are financially illiterate” is just elitist BS. Very few people make incomes like that (I don’t), not everybody is in a position where they even can. The world needs everybody else too. Teachers haven’t “made poor choices” which have led them to be teachers.

MBNUT1

The first one that I heard make the case about how unfair the tax system was to lower income level (workers) was Warren Buffet, who said he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. He went on to say that there is class warfare and his class is winning.

SW20S

There are a lot of high earning/wealthy people who have said the same thing as WB. I don't consider myself wealthy but I make very good income, and while nobody wants to pay taxes like I said, its totally absurd that I can get to a 7% effective tax rate and have that all be completely legal.

JohnLane

LOL.... Please post up a photo of the check the feds sent you to pay for half of your car, fuel and maintenance for it.

You choose (wisely) to take advantage of legal write offs. Much different than Uncle Sam sending you a check for it.

Should you be suffering guilt about the percentage of your adjusted gross income that you get to send to .fed quarterly you are more than welcome to send more. Bet you could even ask that it go toward the federal (all of our) debt. If every high earner did the same it wouldn’t be enough. Government needs to spend less.

Mitch Alsup

No, we have a both problem. We bring in too little and pay out too much.

We had a LOT fewer immigrants across the southern boarder when we spent lavishly on foreign aid.

Ask not what your country can do for you,.....

$80B is a basic rounding error in the current budget.

Those who remember can remember those things at election time.

Mitch Alsup

What we need is::
a) $30M fighter jets (instead of $135M) you can have 4× as many ... {tanks, frigates, carriers, missles, ...}
b) $0 in corporate welfare--if your business is not successful you should go out of business ...
c) $0 in agricultural welfare--if you can't make it as a farmer--let someone else try ...
d) create an environment where Americans pay less for medicines than anywhere/everywhere else in the world.
Get business to agree to the above, and liberals will agree to
d) $0 in long term welfare (longer than 1 year)
{We as a country are willing to pick you up, dust you off, give you a new start, and then it is all up to you.}

MB2timer

We are getting a bit off topic, but I am not 1 bit persuaded by any of your arguments or assertions. Why did you say 80B? Alexandria Occasional Cortex presented it with as wish list and a budget of 80 TRILLION. That is my recollection.

SW20S

Believing that the tax code unfairly benefits people with high incomes does not mean I am in favor of policies like that or that I don’t believe spending needs to be controlled.

Republicans are always in favor of tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, it’s just that their tax cuts typically only benefit people with high incomes, and where they want to cut only hurts people who rely on government services and entitlements. I don’t need a tax cut, and I won’t need social security. My kids teacher needs both. So if you want to cut her social security and increase her taxes by capping the SALT as an example so I can pay 5% instead of 7%, no thanks. Make me pay 25% and leave her alone.

JohnLane

Cutting taxes makes for more investment.... Growing the economy... More people make more money which brings more $$$ to our friends at .Gov.

Fifty cents in a bet says not a one of us has been employed by a guy who didn’t have two nickels to rub together.

We cannot tax our way to prosperity.

Never ending ‘benefits’ does not encourage work.

I’m all for a hand up. Not never ending hand outs.

MBNUT1

Ah the old trickle down theory.... Cut tax rates for the wealthy and corporations and everyone wins.

MB2timer

The Reagan tax cuts that the “lib’s” love to demonize as “trickle down” ACTUALLY WORKED. Revenues to the treasury immediately doubled. What did the lib’s(with some help by Rino’s) do? They immediately tripled spending. With a race like that, what wins?
Money ABSOLUTELY DOES trickle down. People with money want nice cars, clothes, houses, second houses, renovations, boats. Who does that money trickle down to? Blue collar, and white collar workers filling those jobs. Vendors, suppliers, and everyone along the logistics train get paid.
It’s almost like libs have never heard of economics.
Some of you libs say it’s elitist to say that there are forms of illiteracy out there. I would encourage you to expand your worldview and read some books that might educate you, absolve your ignorance, reticence, and recalcitrance.
The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley
Future Shock by Alvin Toffler.
Balcony people Joyce Landorf Heatherly
7 Habits of Highly Effective People byStephen Covey.
Please don’t immediately react with the malicious question “Have you read them?????”
Why is it you libs, in addition to being destructively progressive, you are also instinctively reactionary?

Lou B

Good luck in getting a sensible reply from 'Libs,"

MBNUT1

I think that this clearly illustrates which direction the wealth is flowing.

shortgamewizard

shortgamewizard

Was hilarious when I think it was last year, CA gov. announced they would be all electric by some
certain unattainable date. Next day CA announced possible blackouts coming that day because
their grid would be stressed. Can't make this stuff up.

shortgamewizard

One more thing I have learned over the years, when politicians push something this hard; global warming / climate change, electric vehicles, don't have enough bandwidth
to go through the list, one way or another, you're about to get screwed!