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

[tooAlive]

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.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

Eminent domain. There are many cases where the government has taken all of a person's assets "for the good of the people." As another example, after paying 35% income tax you may also have to pay both parts of SS/Med that gets you to 50%.. add in fees and other federal taxes you can easily approach 60% effective... throw in double taxation such as investment and death taxes and you can easily argue you are paying 80-90%.

 

[ilia25]

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.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.

He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

 

[ilia25]

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.

He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

And you have failed to read your own sources too:
"In the same year [1958], roughly 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of 81% or higher."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.

The issue has nothing to do with a ‘fair share ‘ or some ‘specific number.’

The issue concerns the fallacy of ‘trickle-down economics,’ where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.

Punkin, if the issue "has nothing to do with a 'fair share'", how come the fucking leftists keep SAYING IT?!

What is the American dream? The American dream is one big tent. One big tent. And on that big tent you have four basic promises: equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access, and fair share. - Jesse Jackson

Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one can stop us. - Elizabeth Warren

Now, the president would like to do tax reform, which would obviously lower rates for most people in America and make the tax code fair and get rid of loopholes and special treatment. But absent tax reform, the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. - David Plouffe

Our platform calls for a balanced deficit reduction plan where the wealthy pay their fair share. And when your country is in a costly war, with our soldiers sacrificing abroad and our nation facing a debt crisis at home, being asked to pay your fair share isn't class warfare - it's patriotism. - Cory Booker

Friends, I'm angry about what's happening in politics today! Why is it wrong to ask the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations to pay their fair share? - Richard Trumka

The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues (that the United States is), whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are .. Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what -- it's growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty ... There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it, to our regret in my opinion. - Hillary Clinton

[W]hat people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes." "All I'm saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes." "Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? Because we can’t afford to do both. - Barack Obama

 

[tooAlive]

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.

And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.

I've read, and re-read similar reports numerous times.

You're the one that is either deliberately or unknowingly misinterpreting what it says.

While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..

By your logic Mitt Romney paid a ~30% effective rate in 2011, as he earned $13 million dollars. He didn't. His effective tax rate was 14.1%, even though the highest tax bracket applies to him.

The same thing happened in the 50s, Ilia. People that technically fell in the 90% tax bracket ended up paying a much, much lower rate because of deductions, exemptions, ect.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.

He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

And you have failed to read your own sources too:
"In the same year [1958], roughly 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of 81% or higher."

lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in. I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.

 

[ilia25]

While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..

You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.

 

[ilia25]

He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

And you have failed to read your own sources too:
"In the same year [1958], roughly 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of 81% or higher."

lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in.

Sure thing, USA was a banana republic, and always will be. Tell me, how can you avoid paying taxes after you report your income to IRS? And if nobody reports their true income, how IRS knew that 10,000 people were subject to rate of 81% or higher?

 

[tooAlive]

While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..

You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.

Why isn't Warren Buffet in jail? Why isn't Bill Gates in jail? Why isn't Mitt Romney in jail? Why isn't Barack Obama in jail?

The truth is all those people are multimillionaires and paid a much lower effective tax rate than the actual tax brackets would suggest.

This is exactly the same thing that happened in the 50s. You're here trying to convince us that people back then were actually happy to fork over 90% of their highest income.

They didn't, and never will. At least not here in the US.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

70% was good enough for President Kennedy

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Very interesting too that 91% is the "communist" rate because that's the top tax rate we had under Eisenhower

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

Raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the rich. No

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't

 

[tooAlive]

Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't

Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

And you have failed to read your own sources too:
"In the same year [1958], roughly 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of 81% or higher."

lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in. I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.

But those who take advantage of whatever loopholes, deductions, and credits the law allows are not scam artists. Nobody refuses to pay a sale price just because others elsewhere are paying the full retail price. Those with a clue in how the law is written and structured will use the law to their maximum benefit, and I don't care WHO they are, liberal, conservative, or little green men from Mars.

So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income. Except for a very rare possible exception, no American is going to go to work when they are allowed to keep only 14% of what they earn.

 

[tooAlive]

And can [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?

United States Government Revenue History - Charts

I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.

 

[ilia25]

While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..

You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.

Why isn't Warren Buffet in jail? Why isn't Bill Gates in jail? Why isn't Mitt Romney in jail? Why isn't Barack Obama in jail?

Because according to IRS top rate does not apply to most of their income. But 91% top rate DID apply to some people income circa 1960 -- according to IRS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

Yes, but then the well connected wouldn't be able to avoid taxes. And how would the IRS attack the Tea Party for Obama?