As opposed to CUT taxes for the rich?
@Cratic3947 Australia has had 25+ years of consecutive annual growth. Australia has not had a recession since the early 1990s.
Wasting your time. Cratic doesn’t care about facts.
4 Likes
Uncut tax cuts for the rich.
In conjuction with the balanced budget. They cut taxes, then they also have to cut the budget (or automatic cuts kick in).
It’s designed to keep the government out of what it shouldn’t be in (aka single payer, free college, free child care, and all the other Free (higher taxes on the rich) that many Dem/Liberals are calling for.
What the ■■■■■ Trump is President. When will you and the rest of his supporters hold him accountable?
1 Like
As far as I am concerned there is very little in your post that I agree with. For example, universal health care should be a priority for all industrialised countries. Those who earn more should pay more taxes.
Further, it was alleged that tax cuts work as a catalyst for increased economic activity. Therefore, if that premise was correct then there should be overall increased revenue. With your proposal rather than decreasing expenditure, it would allow for increased expenditure. Of course the reality is that premise is not true.
I also think that having such rigidity does not allow the flexibility required if there is a downturn in economic circumstances. This flexibility allowed the Australian Government to increase its government expenditure during the GFC and the result of that increased expenditure resulted in Australia going through the GFC with continuing annual growth and not going into a recession.
What? Don’t you see? If they demand their opponent do the difficult part, then they get all the benefits and none of the responsibility!
Not a requirment under our constitution, and no provisions for it in our constitution.
Technically they should. If you follow my proposed tax plan they would. Every person would have their own individual tax form. Each form would get a single deduction (as in everyone would get it). No other deductions or credits allowed. Then each tax form would be subject to the same percentage tax. So under my plan a person who made 30k, get a deduction of roughly 12 thousand dollars, and pay tax on roughly 18k. Someone who make’s 4 million would get a deduction of roughly 12k and pay taxes on 3,978,000 dollars. Do the math. at a 10% tax rate. The 30K person would pay 1,200 in tax and the person making 4 million would pay 397k in taxes.
I’ve spent the tax savings I got on my income tax, and also the savings passed along to me by the gas coupany, the electric company, my car insurance, and my house insurance. That’s what the tax reduction is supposed to do.
However with the uncertainty of next election and the tax tax tax 'em to death dems. First of the year I’m going to start saving my money. Just in case I need it. Trump gets re-elected I’ll start spending again.
No it doesn’t. Government should not be responsible for spending our way out of a downturn.
General welfare clause.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Let me do the maths. I am a very strong supporters of a progressive tax regime; so those on higher incomes should pay a higher income tax rate than those on a lower income.
I repeat universal health care should be standard for all industrialised countries including the USA.
Was Australia able to continue its annual economic growth throughout the GFC when almost other countries fell into a recession?
By the way did you mean this?
“Government should be responsible for spending our way out of a downturn.”
In my long form amendment proposal (this was just the basics). I do allow for a “relief” valve situation.
2 cases.
First would be a declared and specified National emergency. Would need to be passed by 3/4 of the house and 3/4 of the senate. It would allow deficit spending for a single budget year. Can be extedned by one budget year on the same vote. 2 years is all they get to take care of a national emgerncy with with deficit spending.
Second is a declared war with a specification against who (a declared war on terror would not qualify). That also requires a 3/4 vote of both houses, and allows for deficit spending for 3 years, and can be extended another 2 years by the same vote.
No in my example EVEYONE pays a 10% tax rate. But there is only a single deduction period. No others. So in my example a person making 30k a year (gross) would pay 1,200 in tax. A person making 4 million a year (gross) would pay 398k in taxes. Isn’t that the “progressive tax” you would like?
You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. Just remember here in the US anything would have to abide by our constitution.
No I said it as it should be. Government Should NOT be responsible for spending our way out of a downturn.
You might like to check your post around post 49.
aaaah, it’s now corrected.
I don’t think government provided healthcare falls into that. sorry. My opinion.
You’re welcome.
How much would that add back?
@Snow96 assuming the appropriate legislation for your proposal is put in place; what sort of penalties and for whom would there be if at the end of the financial year your objectives weren’t met?
