Maybe Democrats SHOULD cut taxes after all. Here's my plan:

1) Eliminate income tax for individuals earning less than $50,000 per year, or families earning less than $100,000 per year.
2) Make up most of the shortfall by raising taxes on individuals earning more than $10 million per year, or families earning more than $20 million per year.
3) Adjust it so that the effect is a net tax cut of somewhere between 1-5%.

a swath large enough to make difference.

but those families earning more than $20M have the big guns.

Raising/lowering taxes, as an issue, is dwarfed by the real gorilla in the room -- the war. Without the war we could lower taxes and still have plenty of money left over for Katrina victims, education, national health, you name it.

When Republicans bring up the "Democrats raise taxes" meme, throw that into the mix and watch the conversation stall like a mired M1 tank.

The Democrats fail to realize republicans are using the 'bait & switch' on people, and that is why people keep voting for them. If the Democrats would tell the people they are going to do what is fair and right for most people and actually do it, then they would never have to worry about being labeled again to the masses.

It's fucking INSANE that dividends and capital gains are taxed at rates less than half of the rates applied to earned income ... and bank INTEREST. By far, the only "nest egg" many marginal working class have is a savings account ... and they get taxed on the interest on that savings at marginal earned income rates.

single tax bracket. 75% on all adjusted gross income of $75,000 for single, $150,000 for married. Remove all income limits on things like the Social Security and Medicare tax.

Adjust it every year for inflation, pay off the national debt, then once that is done live within that income level.



Something for corporate income taxes would adjust the percentage based on a) gross revenues, and b) profitability.

Small businesses could have high profit-to revenue, but if it passed a certain level the tax level would jump significantly higher. As the business gets bigger and more powerful, that level drops. Make capital expenditures, R&D, employee benefits like health care and retirement savings, and the first $50,000 of a employee's wages a tax deduction.

As small, high-profit companties got bigger, they would either have to spend more on equipment, research, and/or their employees to avoid the tax jump, or else lower costs. All of which benefit the consumer and the population.

US owned businesses doing business in USA, and with their headquarters in the US

- tax credit for every NEW job created
- tax credit proportional to health insurance expenses, the more they pay for/provide insurance for employees the larger the tax credit (until we can get this healthcare mess fixed)

If a company has their headquarters outside of US, and does business in US - apply an foreign business tax.

their behavior can no longer be shaped by incentives or disincentives inherent in the tax code.


I mean if you don't pay or are not required to file taxes then you are not going to apply for a hybrid car credit either.

In other words, you'd be eligible for certain taxes and credits, even if you're not paying into the system.

A family of 4 making $50,000 per year could get a credit for the hybrid car, plus the dependent child deduction, for example, and have the government owe them money.

Or, we could have a system where instead of "paying negative taxes" your credits would be paid into your social security account, medical savings account, college savings account, or some other arrangement.

When a majority of the population receives benefits from the government but pays in nothing, there's nothing to keep them from continuing to expect greater benefits since they're essentially free.

*Getting* services doesn't make you more sensitive to tax policy and implications of tax policy. It just means that you're getting something for nothing; then the question isn't "What's a fair tax policy?" but becomes "How much can I get before the system breaks down?"

It's why I oppose calls for removing the payroll taxes entirely and think that even those making poverty wages should still contribute at least a token amount. It makes them "stakeholders" in the system and not just dependents, and helps to alter (at least in principle) how they view the government.

In other words, in parallel with "no taxation without representation" I think that in most cases an equally valid slogan in general would be "no representation without taxation". While representation is at an individual level (i.e., voting) taxation is at the level of the economic unit ("household"). I wouldn't make it an absolute requirement--those in profound poverty, temporarily out of the employment market, or incapable of holding a job would constitute a small enough percentage that the distortion in tax policy would be slight.

I'll need to think about it some more.

Bet they'd be going after people in that income bracket with some nice deals.