2040huck said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Flat tax on what income? No deductions? Are you proposing just one rate or do you agree that truck drivers should be allowed to deduct for new tires, fuel, etc?

---

Zero deductions. Everybody pays for their stuff and pays taxes on earned income. The market will determine what that income is.

dermdoc said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Loren Visser said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

What rate should he pay on profits he hasn't recognized?

---

60% or higher.

Honestly, I havent put a lot of thought into it, so do not hold me to it.

---

With all due respect, that logically makes no sense and is completely devoid of critical thinking. Why should Elon or anyone have to pay a higher % just because they were smarter or worked harder and made more money than me?
I have never understood why money I make over a certain amount should be taxed at a higher rate. If I work harder or smarter than someone else, why should I be penalized?
It Is all emotional based and makes zero sense.

---

Correct. It reveals the philosophical belief that the more someone earns from their labor or their financial investment that a decreasing percentage of the fruits of their labor belongs to them and instead belongs to the government i.e. the harder on works, the more the government deserves the revenue. That is insanity.

dermdoc said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Flat tax on what income? No deductions? Are you proposing just one rate or do you agree that truck drivers should be allowed to deduct for new tires, fuel, etc?

---

Zero deductions. Everybody pays for their stuff and pays taxes on earned income. The market will determine what that income is.

---

So if it costs me 50 k a year to earn 100k in revenue, I have to pay taxes on 100k? That makes no sense. So you can no longer deduct the cost of rent for your office, or all those pretty nurses you have? You just pay a flat tax on gross receipts?

asking about a truck driver's tires in a hypothetical alternative tax structure is a weird way to defend the punitive escalating structure we have today that hinders business and growth in order to fund an ineffective debilitating ever-expanding daddy government.

2040huck said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Flat tax on what income? No deductions? Are you proposing just one rate or do you agree that truck drivers should be allowed to deduct for new tires, fuel, etc?

---

Zero deductions. Everybody pays for their stuff and pays taxes on earned income. The market will determine what that income is.

---

So if it costs me 50 k a year to earn 100k in revenue, I have to pay taxes on 100k? That makes no sense. So you can no longer deduct the cost of rent for your office, or all those pretty nurses you have? You just pay a flat tax on gross receipts?

---

I think you guys might be talking past each other. You seem to be discussing business income and he is talking about personal.

Ewwww, more money in my account

Superfreak said:

---

Yeah except someone making $600000 AGI is not paying the same rate as an Elon musk. Why are effective tax rates so hard for people to understand?

---

Because all of our tax code is impossible to really understand. There shouldn't be marginal, effective, real, whatever tax rates - just friggin tax rates. And you should be able to figure out your tax burden in about 15 seconds instead of having to use actuary tables, voodoo, pixie dust and black magic to make a wild guess.

I'm on board with a flat tax. Having a tax code that's difficult to navigate, but it's your fault and you'll pay a hefty fine or go to jail if you (or your tax person) screw up is ridiculous. I also think that above a certain point, political donations to candidates or PACs should be taxable, too.

As for the OP, I've heard quite a few of the very rich (such as Bill Gates) say they're willing to pay more taxes.

American's have soured on the US government's fiscal mismanagement and inability to even create a budget much less operate under a balanced one.

American's have soured on the government's use of deficit funding for individual social benefits instead of strategic investment with intergenerational benefits.

Americans have soured on tax rates used as a tool of punishment and coercion.

Francis Macomber said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Exactly nobody who pays taxes is souring on the idea of tax cuts. ****ing morons.

---

I pay taxes in the top bracket. I absolutely hate Musk, Zuck, and Altman pay same percentage I do. Thats horse*****

---

Then it seems you are diametrically opposed the equal treatment under the law, in this case the tax laws.

but think of all the tax attorneys, tax consultants, tax auditors, tax return preparers, tax software developers, tax regulator/enforcement agents, etc. that would be out of a job if we deleted the code and instituted a simple flat tax

the most cool guy said:

---

Exactly nobody who pays taxes is souring on the idea of tax cuts. ****ing morons.

---

Worthy of repeating.

dermdoc said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Agree. Take away politicians power by using tax rates as a divisive weapon.

---

And social engineering.

There is no one fair way to tax people. Someone or other will find something unfair.

That said, any savings, apply to the national debt. My heart aches when I see 38T there.

redsquirrelAG said:

---

Irs funds terrorism worldwide meaning all taxpayers all terrorists.

---

Your statement made me consider what the likelihood The Atlantic was receiving money from USAID or some other taxpayer funded NGO.

Unpopular opinion: Budget needs to be balanced, so taxes should match what we spend. If that means higher taxes - so be it, but I guarantee as soon as that tax bill came in, politicians would get to cutting spending real quick before the pitchforks came out.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Superfreak said:

---

You need me to explain effective tax rates to you? Someone with an income of 600k is going to have an effective tax rate of about 29%. Someone with an income of 100M will have an effective tax rate of about 36.99% for 2025.

---

It's transparent that his argument is based on spite and envy of the super wealthy rather than a notion of fairness because he seamlessly transitions from advocating tax on income to taxing accumulated wealth.

Quote:

---

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

It's as much envy about what people keep as it is of what they earn. The progressives have been after wealth since the first term of FDR.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/deal-soaked-rich-middle-class-poor/

Quote:

---

Then in 1936 FDR signed into law a graduated undistributed profits tax that penalized companies for building up savings essential for investment. Companies that retained 1 percent of their net income would see 10 percent of it taxed away. Companies that retained 70 percent of their net income would see 73.91 percent of it go to the government. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Guy Helvering described the purpose of undistributed profits tax rather delicately: "the Federal government shall not be unreasonably and inequitably deprived of necessary revenues."

FDR demonized investors and employers as "economic royalists" and "privileged princes." Opinion surveys of private sector employers suggested widespread fear of the federal government because of FDR's policies. An American Institute of Public Opinion poll reported that a majority of employers anticipated more government control of the economy in the future. In a November 1941 Fortune poll, 93 percent of employers said they expected their property rights to be undermined, and there could be a dictatorship.

It was no wonder that as Robert Higgs has pointed out, investment was at historic lows during the 1930s. Without investment, it was virtually impossible to create new jobs. Economist Lester Chandler observed, "The failure of the New Deal to bring about an adequate revival of private investment is the key to its failure to achieve a complete and self-sustaining recovery of output and employment."

---

Guess who is creating a revival of private investment today?

---

There are several reasons my Grandfather wouldn't take Roosevelt dimes in change, you pointed out one of many.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

lol

almost no c-suite folks are making anything above 10,000,000 in individual cash compensation

most compensation is in in RSU and other stock options. It's not taxed like income.

---

Actually, when RSUs pay out they are taxed as ordinary income. Same for stock options.

Once those shares are paid to you and taxed as ordinary income, then if you hold it and don't sell immediately, any future gains are taxed as capital gains at lower rates.

Let's say you get a payout of 100 shares of RSUs. You will owe ordinary income tax (assume 35%), so you net 65 shares. If you hold those shares for ten years and they double in value, then you'll pay capital gains tax (assume 20%) on the value increase.

Some people think it's unfair to tax capital gains lower than ordinary income. Aside from the fact there's a strong reason to do it because it encourages investment which indirectly contributes to employment for others, there's a case to made that capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all, because much of the gain over time can simply be due to inflation.

Taking that example above, if half of the stock gain over ten years is simply due to inflation, why should the stock holder pay a tax on inflation? Why should anybody pay a tax on inflation?

Answer: they shouldn't. Capital gains should be indexed for inflation first so that you are only paying tax on real value appreciation. But that's a different conversation...

---

Countries With No Capital Gains Tax: The Complete List
There are caveats such as short Vs long term
I believe there were many more countries, in Europe but alas the government greed is shortening the list.

coolerguy12 said:

---

This might be one of the stupidest OPs I have ever seen. And I was around in the days of the two teas theory so that is saying a lot.

---

OPs statement sounds like something two teas would say.

infinity ag said:

---

There is no one fair way to tax people. Someone or other will find something unfair.

That said, any savings, apply to the national debt. My heart aches when I see 38T there.

---

Agreed, there's no such thing as fair. People who use the word "fair" to describe anything taxes are always charlatans.

2040huck said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Flat tax on what income? No deductions? Are you proposing just one rate or do you agree that truck drivers should be allowed to deduct for new tires, fuel, etc?

---

No one is arguing that. Of course an independent truck driver is a businessman and his income is what is left after business expenses.

Francis Macomber said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

So? Tax the **** out of the ones that do. In case you've not noticed, we have concentrated wealth more than just about anytime in our country's history.

---

This IS two teas.
Absolutely absurd.

Take more money from Elon and give it to the government might be one of the most stupid things i've read. Your envy of Elon disguised as caring about the wealth concentration fools no one. You know who has the highest concentration of wealth? The entity spending 6 trillion dollars a year. And you want to give it more??

BBRex said:

---

I'm on board with a flat tax. Having a tax code that's difficult to navigate, but it's your fault and you'll pay a hefty fine or go to jail if you (or your tax person) screw up is ridiculous. I also think that above a certain point, political donations to candidates or PACs should be taxable, too.

As for the OP, I've heard quite a few of the very rich (such as Bill Gates) say they're willing to pay more taxes.

---

Unless they are contributing beyond what they legally owe, they are lying.

Cut federal spending to the bone and pass a balanced budget and let's see where the tax rates really need to be.

Quote:

---

Cut federal spending to the bone

---

So far we have trouble trimming the fingernail on a pinkie.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Cut federal spending to the bone

---

So far we have trouble trimming the fingernail on a pinkie.

---

Because the majority of the electorate is not currently paying for it. I imagine it would take close to everyone paying net 20%+ to meet our current spending. When Joe Sixpack starts paying $17K in taxes on his $75K salary those politicians voting for more expenditures will be ousted.

Phatbob said:

---

Unpopular opinion: Budget needs to be balanced, so taxes should match what we spend. If that means higher taxes - so be it, but I guarantee as soon as that tax bill came in, politicians would get to cutting spending real quick before the pitchforks came out.

---

Since when did common sense be unpopular.

I support your post.

What a load of crap(the article).

Phatbob said:

---

Unpopular opinion: Budget needs to be balanced, so taxes should match what we spend. If that means higher taxes - so be it, but I guarantee as soon as that tax bill came in, politicians would get to cutting spending real quick before the pitchforks came out.

---

I fully support this plan as long as everyone is paying the same rate.

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

Progressives need to stop worrying about how much more of our money the government should take, and instead worry about holding the government accountable for the awful waste and fraud with the money that they already took from us.

Why do you want higher tax rates for the highest earners?

Man. OP disappeared like a fart in the wind

BBRex said:

---

I'm on board with a flat tax. Having a tax code that's difficult to navigate, but it's your fault and you'll pay a hefty fine or go to jail if you (or your tax person) screw up is ridiculous. I also think that above a certain point, political donations to candidates or PACs should be taxable, too.

As for the OP, I've heard quite a few of the very rich (such as Bill Gates) say they're willing to pay more taxes.

---

I find these rich guys talking about increasing taxes amusing. Most examples of rich guys saying tax us more make most of their money through investments and capital gains and little if any from ordinary income. Somehow the Dems interpret "pay more taxes" as increase the rate on ordinary income.

Also, it is amusing how many of these guys willing to pay more taxes have an army of accountants working hard to ensure as much of their money is sheltered from taxes as possible.

They are pretty safe saying "willing to pay more taxes" when they know they aren't really going to be paying it anyway.

Also need to consider these mega earners employ a lot of people that also make a good living and pay taxes as do the contractors and suppliers they use. The knock on impact of their enterprises are rarely mentioned . So the answer is punish them by making them pay a higher % and make it harder for them to be successful ? Seems like a very counterintuitive approach to me.

I do agree with you that there are so many loopholes that many of them won't pay a higher % anyway but you can't blame them for playing by the rules they didn't make. Would be a lot more transparent if the tax code was simplified. That would of course be a problem for tax accountants and lawyers but they don't generate product anyway, they just move numbers around . Product of the system and I don't begrudge them for it as they are just playing by the rules they didn't make as well.