Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC was 5 years ago

I'm finding out about new tax breaks each year!
I was so focused on getting the balance..
Who knew the bennies where so righteous!
 
aeprga said:
Well I'd tax all income at the same rate and use a scale that didn't really have "brackets" per se but rather resulting in taxation along an exponential scale with increasing level of taxation at higher and higher incomes. The way we do it now is pretty stupid, taxing dollar $400,001 at the same rate as dollar $10,000,000.
Click to expand...

I do believe that regressive taxation is the only fair form of taxation but you can go to far with progressive taxation in that it disencentivises people. Why should someone go the extra mile, work, blood, sweat and tears to make a million in a year only to have 70% of it go to Uncle Sam? I think our current system is by and large very fair. The current federal tax system is fairly representative. Roughtly the top 20% of income earners earn about about 60% of the nations income and pay about 65% of the taxes. That's pretty fair.

What we need to do is get rid of all the exemptions, corporate and personal,....all of them...and treat all forms of income equally.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I do believe that regressive taxation is the only fair form of taxation but you can go to far with progressive taxation in that it disencentivises people. Why should someone go the extra mile, work, blood, sweat and tears to make a million in a year only to have 70% of it go to Uncle Sam? I think our current system is by and large very fair. The current federal tax system is fairly representative. Roughtly the top 20% of income earners earn about about 60% of the nations income and pay about 65% of the taxes. That's pretty fair.

What we need to do is get rid of all the exemptions, corporate and personal,....all of them...and treat all forms of income equally.
Click to expand...


I didn't say to impose a 70% rate at $1 million. I said $10 million. And, frankly, lots of people work really really really hard and don't earning $10 million a year such that I'm not concerned that taking the government taking 71 cents of dollar $10,000,001 is going to actually disincentivize anyone from "working hard." The same can be said about any increase in the marignal tax rate. My suggestion is that it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to stop increasing rates at $400,000.
 
aeprga said:
I didn't say to impose a 70% rate at $1 million. I said $10 million. And, frankly, lots of people work really really really hard and don't earning $10 million a year such that I'm not concerned that taking the government taking 71 cents of dollar $10,000,001 is going to actually disincentivize anyone from "working hard." The same can be said about any increase in the marignal tax rate. My suggestion is that it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to stop increasing rates at $400,000.
Click to expand...
You do have a point there.

My point is that I don't have a problem with our current system, sans tax deductions and loopholes. It's relatively fair and provides more than adequate income to fund our government at current levels of spending with no real reason to raise taxes higher. It's the tax deductions and loopholes in our indecipherably complex tax laws that create our revenue shortfalls. I'd be willing to sacrifice my mortgage deduction if Wall Street has to sacrifice their corporate loopholes.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You do have a point there.

My point is that I don't have a problem with our current system, sans tax deductions and loopholes. It's relatively fair and provides more than adequate income to fund our government at current levels of spending with no real reason to raise taxes higher. It's the tax deductions and loopholes in our indecipherably complex tax laws that create our revenue shortfalls. I'd be willing to sacrifice my mortgage deduction if Wall Street has to sacrifice their corporate loopholes.
Click to expand...

This I ca agree with. And Mott even said it without profanity. ;)
 
The Dude said:
The mortgage deduction will be the last to go!
That's just being retarded.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was realistic I was just pointing out some facts. That our current progressive system generates enough revenue to meet current spending needs and that it is progressive and that it is fair in that those who earn 80% of revenues are paying roughly 80% of the taxes and that it is the deductions, corporate loopholes and subsidies in our tax laws that create our budget shortfalls.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I do believe that regressive taxation is the only fair form of taxation but you can go to far with progressive taxation in that it disencentivises people. Why should someone go the extra mile, work, blood, sweat and tears to make a million in a year only to have 70% of it go to Uncle Sam? I think our current system is by and large very fair. The current federal tax system is fairly representative. Roughtly the top 20% of income earners earn about about 60% of the nations income and pay about 65% of the taxes. That's pretty fair.

What we need to do is get rid of all the exemptions, corporate and personal,....all of them...and treat all forms of income equally.
Click to expand...

Just curious about something.
If the decision is made to tax the income at a much higher level; what would everyone do, if those being taxed at the higher rate decided to just close their companies and stop generating income?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top