Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress November 6th, 2017 6:10pm

Debate over Middle-Class Tax Cut proposed by PeaceKeepaGirl (D-ME)

0 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ctskapski NB MD
11/06/17 11:42 pm

Taxation should certainly never be above 50%, (though, personally, I don't think it should ever be that high)

Reply
chance Troll
11/06/17 6:08 pm

This is literally one of the dumbest bills I have ever seen

Reply
FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/06/17 3:02 pm

The poor shouldn't get home free no taxes. And the rich rates are a little high

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/06/17 3:01 pm

Peace keep a girl I'd love to work with you on a tax plan, I feel like I may be able to get conservative appeal with a mixture of our plans

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
11/06/17 10:43 pm

I'd be interested in working with you on this as well. Obviously this is too much a shift too fast for most people right now.

jfish82285 Tennessean in Colorado
11/06/17 12:41 pm

Section (f) is slightly concerning, but I support it overall.

ranger13 Texas
11/06/17 12:05 pm

Nay. I am all for lowering the tax burden for low and middle income individuals, but this not the way to do it. This bill removes much of the incentive to work hard and become successful knowing that so much of your income will be payed to income taxes.

Reply
LibertyLover Pokemon 201461036800
11/06/17 11:58 am

Nay, punishing success will bring less success. Tearing down the rich doesn’t build up the poor, it just ruins the economy.

Reply
Senate101 San Diego
11/06/17 11:52 am

Nay, this is just way too much.

Reply
iceberg124
11/06/17 11:42 am

Nay. This is the jealousy system where the lowest contributors get rewarded and the highest contributors punished because of their paycheck.

Reply
PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
11/06/17 10:45 pm

I don't see why you think that. It's still the harder the work the more you make. At most it's a reduction of incentive and maybe would require a little better monitoring of tax havens.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
11/06/17 11:31 am

Nay. It gets silly starting with (d).

Reply
skinner Wisconsin
11/06/17 11:30 am

You're literally calling for a tax system where people who make upwards of $300,000 a year are taxed at 70% of their income. That's not even including state and local taxes, payroll taxes, alternative minimum taxes, ultimately the estate tax, and all the other taxes you pile up on hard-working job creators.

How much can you take from someone before they decide it's not worth it to invest in our economy? When people can't even get one fourth of what they earned, then they are going to retire early and stop producing economic growth.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 11:37 am

You poor thing, I'm sorry you can't live off of 100k. I hope things get better for you.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 11:47 am

Why do you believe people should be punished for being more successful?

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 11:49 am

Because oftentimes success comes from abusing workers and manipulating currency.

And again, at a certain point you have enough money.

iceberg124
11/06/17 11:52 am

you must be smoking some strong stuff bower

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 11:52 am

They earned the money. People choose to work for the company. Saying that at some point people have earned enough money is ridiculous. If I were to decide you have too much money and took it from you you wouldn't like that, would you? Doesn't sound very fair.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 11:53 am

If anything you'd be the one screwing people over. The companies will begin to lay people off, move to other countries, lower incomes, etc. All in the name of "fairness."

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 12:17 pm

Personal taxes aren't corporate taxes though?

skinner Wisconsin
11/06/17 12:31 pm

Most small businesses operate using income taxes instead of corporate taxes.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 12:34 pm

Do you actually think that people are going to cut corners less because they make less money? It's more likely they'll take theirs business to a place that doesn't tax their income an absurd amount.

Punishing people for making money isn't the way to go. Go on, tell me how you would feel if I decided to take almost all your money because you made too much

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 12:57 pm

I would mostly be confused. The different is any less of my income I have to take out a second mortgage, for somebody with hundreds of thousands of dollars it's how many houses they can buy.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 12:59 pm

Ah, but you're making too much.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:01 pm

Looks like you're gonna have to cut a lot of things to keep your house. What a shame. But at least you aren't making too much money, right?

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:02 pm

Do you seriously believe Business will stay if you tax them at 70%?

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:04 pm

Businesses will leave no matter what. Unless we want to tax so little we become a third world country, there will always be business's seeking tax havens.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:05 pm

Xemanis, did you not even bother to listen what I said? When you're living in luxury you can afford this. When you're living paycheck to paycheck you can't.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:07 pm

Bad answer. Businesses are more likely to leave the more you tax them. One business or two businesses leaving annually is not the same thing as a mass exodus of companies due to insanely high tax rates. Your logic is flawed.

I would recommend considering the logic behind your comments before posting them.

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:08 pm

Leave is underestimating it, they will evacuate. Someone making 350k per year will end up with 100. Do you know how much money have to be moved to profit 350k per year? Many many millions which all that business will go somewhere else, and the few leftover will raise prices exponentially

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:08 pm

The fact is we need higher taxes and more revenue in order to provide for our people and pay of the national debt.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:10 pm

Perhaps then we should seek options that do not involve the companies we tax leaving.

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:12 pm

No you need more growth and to cut spending on entitlements for temporary political points like Obamacare

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:14 pm

What Bert said.

We don't need more programs that drag people down. If we want to fix society we need a system that allows people to thrive without having others drag them down. I suggest we greatly cut welfare and get rid of programs like Obamacare that needlessly waste money and drag people down.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:15 pm

Yeah, I disagree. Welfare is essential is our crony capitalist economy.

ranger13 Texas
11/06/17 1:17 pm

What we need to do is encourage more economic growth. With more economic growth, you create more wealth for everyone, and with more wealth being created there will be more tax revenue being generated. You don’t create more economic growth by raising taxes, especially so drastically like in this bill. We need to lower taxes and reform/simplify the code to encourage more economic growth, and therefore generate more wealth and tax revenue to improve our safety net programs and lower the national debt.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:19 pm

That doesn't work though. All the growth in the last few decades has gone almost exclusively to the top 10%.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:23 pm

Welfare is not necessarily essential. While there are people who require disability benefits, there are others who abuse the system. Not everyone who has welfare truly needs welfare. We cannot coddle our citizens and expect our nation to flourish. Either you're strong enough to provide yourself or you fail. We cannot go on with a nation of coddled weaklings. We need to provide for ourselves. It is a waste of taxpayer money and serves only as a partisan tool to garner votes. Forget the political parties, set aside your love for those that take advantage of you. This is the United States of America we are talking about. The United States of America is considered one of the greatest nations in the world by many and there are those who would kill to be here and work hard to strengthen our great country, yet we could be even better. We have yet to reach our full potential because of the very people that seek to take advantage of you. This is our country and we should make it the best place

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:23 pm

on Earth. If you do not wish this simply for your country, do it for the advancement of the human race. We are considered one of the world's greatest leaders. It is time to set an example worth following.

ranger13 Texas
11/06/17 1:27 pm

That’s why we desperately need tax reform. There are many ways to improve our tax code to benefit those with lower and middle income levels while also promoting economic growth and promoting individual responsibility by increasing the incentives to work hard and become successful.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:27 pm

Lol, you know the happiness countries one the planet are the ones with strong welfare systems, right?

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:28 pm

I am tired of hearing "work hard and become successful", that's not how it works and you know it. I could be the hardest worker in the world and still die poor.

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:29 pm

There will always be poor because there will always be slackers, they contribute less to growth and society than higher earners. By rewarding that behavior you are only ensuring that their children will follow in their footsteps.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:30 pm

There are people who are poor because they are slackers. There are also people who are poor because of season outside of there control

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:33 pm

Also. Are you saying we shouldn't be trying to end poverty?

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:33 pm

Work somewhere else in the same field when it's another states season, problem solved. There is no excuse to claim your seasonal job is a full time job.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:33 pm

I didn't say you should become a millionaire or perish. I just said that taking advantage of the welfare system happens too often and it should be changed.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 1:35 pm

I even just said that some people require welfare, like for disabilities and other things out of their control. No, we shouldn't try to prevent self induced poverty. We can take care of our citizens better when those kinds of people aren't dragging the entire system down.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 1:37 pm

Again, I want to point out that the most prosperous Nations (Nordic countries, Germany, ect) got There by the welfare state

iceberg124
11/06/17 1:43 pm

They got there because the US funded them to get there and presidents took the role of sucker in chief, the US is an industrial welfare state. France is having a lot of economic problems at the moment from their hostility towards the rich, their exports are focused on cultural values, which they are simultaneously destroying as well

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 2:13 pm

Explain why you think countries become richer and more successful from giving their money away.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 2:32 pm

I don't. I am just saying the Nordic and Northern European models are the most successful in the modern world.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 2:37 pm

Then it won't help us.

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 2:39 pm

Why not? Shouldn't we be looking at one creates economic prosperity and following it?

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 2:45 pm

Didn't you just say you don't believe it causes economic prosperity?

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 2:55 pm

No? I didn't mean to. They are clearly the most prosperous countries.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 3:31 pm

Then what are you trying to say?

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 3:39 pm

I'm trying to say standards of livings rise with welfare

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 3:43 pm

People might be happy that they can live their lives without having to do anything sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing for the rest of us. It is a burden on our society. Our money is better spent on things that benefit it rather than supporting people who don't want to do anything to help us

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 3:44 pm

I encourage you to do more research on the Nordic states.

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 3:47 pm

I thought this was a debate

bower8899 Gone, Probably Forgotten
11/06/17 4:05 pm

It is but you clearly don't understand how their economies work

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 5:24 pm

'Go do research' isn't a valid argument for a debate

Xemanis Neutral Good
11/06/17 5:25 pm

Tell me how here in the United States of America giving our money away would be beneficial to us

skinner Wisconsin
11/06/17 11:26 am

Nay, we should stop creating disincentives for work and success.

Reply
Jkllink VC President
11/06/17 11:23 am

I’m going to be voting nay because this tax bracket makes no sense. A person who make $387k/year will have less money than someone who made $218k/year. If you make $387k you’ll only have $117k left and if you make $218k you’ll have $119k. These taxes are ridiculously high. Why would you take more than half of someone’s money. They earned this money, not you! You have no right to take away someone else money and then use it on someone else. I believe in tax cuts for everyone but not when you’re tax someone at 70% and when we have a huge deficit.

#TaxationIsTheft
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

Reply
Jkllink VC President
11/06/17 11:27 am

This is what the tax bracket would look:

$387k - 70% = $117k
$218k - 55% = $119k
$143k - 45% = $64k
$71k - 20% = $57k
$17k - 10% = $15.3

*This is the amount left over after taxes*

ranger13 Texas
11/06/17 11:29 am

Taxes don’t work like that. Only the income earned above $387k is taxed at 70%. All the income below that is taxed at each tax bracket level.

Jkllink VC President
11/06/17 11:32 am

I know that, I’m just putting the minimum amount for each bracket.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
11/06/17 10:48 pm

It's still deceptive to frame it that way. Nobody making at least 387 will end up with as low as 117, period.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
11/06/17 11:00 pm

The real numbers are (mental math, might be off a bit)

$17k -> $17k
$71k -> $65.6k
$143k -> $123.2k
$218k -> $164.4k
$387k -> $215k

That's like $100k difference for the 387 person. It's important.

Jkllink VC President
11/07/17 6:31 am

These numbers are way off. $387k would be $193k if you only take away 50%.

387 + 70% = 270
387 - 270 = 117

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
11/09/17 8:02 am

You only pay the 70% on the income that's over 387. In the case of someone making 387, the amount your paying at 70% on is 387-387=0.

If you make 387 you're really paying 17(0) + (71-17)(0.1) + (143-71)(.2) + (218-143)(.45) + (387-218)(.55) which is about 172 if my mental math was right. In other words, just because you cross into the top bracket, doesn't mean you pay the top rate on all the income before that, you're only taxed the higher rate on the income in excess of the threshold you crossed.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
11/06/17 11:11 am

I. Income tax rates shall be adjusted as set forth in (a)-(f). This shall not be understood as affecting any exemptions or credits.
(a) The tax rate on income below $17K is hereby lowered to 0%.
(b) The tax rate on income above $17K is hereby lowered to 10%.
(c) The tax rate on income above $71K is hereby lowered to 20%.
(d) The tax rate on income above $143K is hereby raised to 45%.
(e) The tax rate on income above $218K is hereby raised to 55%.
(f) The tax rate on all income above $387K is hereby raised to 70%.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
11/06/17 11:11 am

Summary: Estimated cost $4B/yr. according to Splitwise's (admittedly slightly outdated) tax revenue estimation tool.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
11/06/17 11:27 am

Sorry it cut off the end.
(f) The tax rate on all income above $387K is hereby raised to 70%.