[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[AmazonTania]

91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.

Only 352 households out of 54 million filed income taxes in the top marginal bracket in 1954. Even then their effective rate was still around the 60's. The top 50% in that time period paid 6% of all federal taxes, while the same top 50% today pays 97.21% of all federal taxes. The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor. Not the rich.

But as far as I'm concerned, the federal income tax is a direct tax which is un-apportioned, which is unlike the 16th amendment demands. Going by this understanding, no one in the country is really paying their fair share of taxes.

 

[Billo_Really]

How did you arrive at that figure? And why?

I took 15% and added 10.

 

[AmazonTania]

That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.

Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.

That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.

The keyword being, 'possibly.'

In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.

This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.

 

[ilia25]

The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

 

[AmazonTania]

The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

 

[ilia25]

The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

 

[Borillar]

The current tax system is cumbersome and inequitable. A flat tax would certainly simplify matters. The problem with most proposals is that only income is considered. One proposal I have read about is the "2-4-8 Weath-Sales-Income tax blend." The 2-4-8 Tax Blend is a federal tax reform plan that would replace the payroll taxes with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $15,000 cash and retirement funds up to $500,000). This enables the income tax rate to be lowered to a flat 8%. The same 2% wealth tax rate and 8% income tax rate would apply to all. Because 50% of the population has only 1% of the wealth and 10% owns 75% of the wealth the combination tax rate is progressive even though the rates are identical for rich and poor.

For business, there would be a 4% VAT and the C corporation income tax rate would be reduced to 8% (for the lowest business tax rates in the developed world).

I'm not an economist, but this looks like something I could support.

Tax Net Wealth

 

[tooAlive]

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.

 

[Billo_Really]

That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.

Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.

That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.

The keyword being, 'possibly.'

In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.

This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.

You're pretty hot, we should mate!

 

[tooAlive]

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.

Oh really?

You tax the rich and then what? Are poor people magically going to get their salaries raised and more money will appear in their bank accounts?

The fact is the more money that is taken from the rich is spent by the government, and many times the poor and working class don't get to see any of it.

 

[tooAlive]

Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?

Then what is the right figure?

Here's a real source, with factual, non-misleading information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?

It means that although tax rates have been as high as 90%, the average effective tax rate has remained roughly the same throughout.

 

[tooAlive]

In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.

That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.

That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.

Only ignorant socialists would have a problem with what I said because it trumps their class-warfare mentality.

Wealth isn't finite. Simply because I have more does not mean you automatically have to have less.

 

[AmazonTania]

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

The argument is fallacious just as the conclusion. The reasoning stems from the higher tax rates from the 1950's up to the late 1970's, and concludes that higher taxes doesn't harm the economy, simply because the country have had much higher taxes in the past. However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy. People have avoided just as many taxes during the 50's and 60's as they did during the present. Probably many more. The point I am getting out is that much fewer people paid them when the rates were higher, as oppose to the amount of individuals paying when taxes are lower.

Given the reasoning, if higher taxes doesn't harm the economy, then lower taxes doesn't harm the economy either.

 

[AmazonTania]

Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.

That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.

The keyword being, 'possibly.'

In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.

This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.

You're pretty hot, we should mate!

I'm saving myself for Chuck Norris... But I guess Jack Bauer is just as good.

 

[ilia25]

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.

 

[ilia25]

However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.

Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.

Nobody is making that argument.

 

[ilia25]

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.

Oh really?

You tax the rich and then what? Are poor people magically going to get their salaries raised and more money will appear in their bank accounts?

Yes, really -- we can tax the poor and the middle class less if we tax the rich more. Starting with payroll taxes, which are applied even to the minimal wage. That would be the same as putting more money to their account.

And what's wrong with actually putting money into their accounts? The government can match every dollar that low income earners make.

It means that although tax rates have been as high as 90%, the average effective tax rate has remained roughly the same throughout.

But we are not talking about the average! The point is that high income earners were paying much more in the past, and the economy was doing OK.

Wealth isn't finite. Simply because I have more does not mean you automatically have to have less.

Not automatically. But other things equal, the poor would receive more if the rich would receive less. And there is no evidence that the other things would not be equal if we do a bit more wealth redistribution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.

Yeah yeah yeah..And about 200 people actually paid that.
Plus it only kicked in on earnings OVER a certain amount
You boneheads want every fucking dime to be taxed. Why? Because you want government to have it. Why? Who knows.
Giving more money to government is the equivalent of giving a fat person more to eat to help them lose weight.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.

And this does what? For the benefit of whom?

 

[thereisnospoon]

In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.

That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.

That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.

How so?...
You don't get to wave at the issue. Disagree, yes. But explain why you disagree. Then counterpoint.
And leave out the talking points.
This idea of "just raise taxes" is garbage. It serves no logical purpose.