<p>Efficient markets…</p>
<p>[Efficient</a> Markets in Action - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/efficient-markets-in-action/]Efficient”>Efficient Markets in Action - The New York Times)</p>
<p>So is a 90% tax rate a good thing?</p>
<p>Sounds like there are a lot of laughs about it, but I can’t get a read on what the commenters here actually think about it. Good thing or not?</p>
<p>Well…the economy was better with a 90% top tax rate than with a 35% top tax rate…</p>
<p>I, personally don’t want to go back to those tax rates…</p>
<p>I want to know why the choice is between a 35% top tax rate and a 90% top tax rate…</p>
<p>there are a lot of choices in between…</p>
<p>I don’t understand the thinking…raising tax rates 10% = socialism…and the idea that we are headed to 90% tax rates, if we raise tax rates back to the tax rates under Clinton…</p>
<p>that thinking is absurd…</p>
<p>The solution on the tax issue is tax simplification which I think that both parties are looking for but it would be a huge undertaking, probably on the order of the Health Care Law or proposed Immigration Reform and I don’t think that the parties are up to the task this year.</p>
<p>Tax ‘simplification’ is only going to work IF there is an overall agreement that the total revenue brought in by the federal government needs to go up. Substantially.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not want to go back to the Clinton days of severe Depression.</p>
<p>I don’t speak to the beliefs of people on this board; but when I speak to people in other venues who support significant tax simplification or flat tax approaches, they seem to have the underlying assumption that their personal share of the tax burden would go down. What if it were to go up? Would those same people support the simplification?</p>
<p>Also, as economists know, taxation is one way to encourage / discourage certain behaviors (e.g., tax breaks for farmland as opposed to building parking lots), or to recognize certain expenditures should not penalize particular individuals (e.g., blind people purchasing medical devices, etc.). You may agree or disagree, but that is a powerful tool that the government would lose if the tax structure were to be substantially simplified or flattened.</p>
<p>I am for lower taxes and higher benefits, for me.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My approach towards filing taxes is to overwithhold by $10K to $20K to ensure that I don’t have any underwithholding problems. My income is quite variable and I don’t like to do quarterly estimates (though I do do them when I think that I have to because overwithholding isn’t enough).</p>
<p>I would prefer simplification, even if it meant higher taxes, because it would save me 30 or 40 hours of stress every year.</p>
<p>I’m all for simplifying the tax code. How is it that (over?) 50% of Americans don’t pay any taxes on April 15th?!?? I do think the wealthy could also pay more without a huge sacrifice, but c’mon. Everyone uses govt services, not just the wealthy! I think it’s really important to have all people pay some amount of income taxes, if only so they have “some skin in the game”.</p>
<p>And whilst they say 50% pay no taxes on income, they conveniently leave out FICA. Everyone who earns a wage pays FICA and the 2xFICA self-employment tax is even more fun. I swear the common man just ignores or forgets FICA, if they all had to write a quarterly check instead of never seeing it due to payroll deductions, we’d have more people fired up.</p>
<p>…and utility taxes, excise taxes, gas tax, sales taxes, etc. Renters are paying property tax, even though it’s hidden - collected and paid to the taxing authority by the landlord, just like retailers (other than Amazon) collect and pay over sales tax. </p>
<p>No one pays “no” taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fox News tells me otherwise.</p>
<p>FoxNews is known for their objective reporting. LOL.</p>
<p>They are known to be fair and balanced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no taxes on income is what ‘they’ say I think
the other stuff is a tax on one’s existence, income or not.</p>
<p>The fact that nearly 50% of tax payers do not make a sufficiently large income to contribute to federal income tax speaks volume to the need of redistributing wealth in our society. Changing the tax code to squeeze out a tax contribution from this group will only aggravate the problem. What we need is better wages by raising the minimal wage.</p>
<p>dstark that is a hilarous cartoon, thanks for the link.</p>