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

[ilia25]

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that? The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.

You've misunderstood the statement -- if it was made that way. May be they did not have records earlier than 1967, but inequality was less then and it has been rising steadily since then.

And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.

The fact is that it was much harder to become super-rich then, than it is now.

 

[ilia25]

Why have you ignored this chart ilia? Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?

I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."

Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.

So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.

That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.

 

[tooAlive]

I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."

Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.

So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.

That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.

LOL!!!

So you admit that you were wrong, and nobody has paid 90% of any portion of their income?

But FYI, the 1%ers back then did belong in the top tax bracket. You even said so yourself. Not many, but "some." Or were you wrong about that too?

 

[ilia25]

Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.

Gotcha.

Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.

 

[ilia25]

Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.

So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.

That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.

LOL!!!

So you admit that you were wrong, and nobody has paid 90% of any portion of their income?

No. Some did reach 90% bracket, but they were making much more than the 1% threshold.

But FYI, the 1%ers back then did belong in the top tax bracket. You even said so yourself. Not many, but "some."

Exactly -- only very few richest members of the top 1% reached the top tax bracket. That is why most other 1 percenters paid much lower marginal rate.

Jesus, that math is so simple a second-grader would understand!

 

[Foxfyre]

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.

Gotcha.

Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.

Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow, less money to invest so that businesses can grow, less money for new businesses, expansions, fewer new jobs, fewer benefits. Why? Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.

The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich. Far more effective and compassionate and humane policy is that which encourages the poor to become richer.

 

[ilia25]

So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.

Gotcha.

Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.

Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow

The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.

less money to invest so that businesses can grow, less money for new businesses, expansions

That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.

, fewer new jobs, fewer benefits. Why? Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.

That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.

The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.

That is not a fact -- more like a myth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that? The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's. And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.

But even WITH that disparity, history records this:



And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.

Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?

It depends on what is in the bill. The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself. If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.

However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?

Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?

no, for the 1000th time!! A Democratic jobs bill is a tax and spend jobs bill. They take the money from the private sector thereby contracting it, then spend in the public sector thereby expanding it, so the net gain is 0 !

for the 1000th time you willl have to ignore the above because you lack the courage to face that you are too ignorant as a liberal to understand it.

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.

Those making equivalent of a million, and paying 66% effective rate were below the top bracket. So there were more than a few hundreds of them.

Also, the fact that there weren't many millionaires back then is important on its own. The reason for taxing the rich in the first place is to reduce inequality. And 50s and 60s show that you don't need high inequality (i.e. we don't have to let the "job creators" to keep their millions) for the economy to grow fast.

There were plenty of millionaires back then. There just weren't as many as there were now. It was very easy to get away with not paying as many taxes during 50's and 60's.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."

So petulant, so childish, the basis of all leftism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

except its not a zero sum game. 500 hundred years ago everyone was poor, while today everyone is rich in comparison although there is still inequality.

What's astounding is how well off the poor are now despite how little they contribute to society. For example they get state of the art medical care that they couldn't invent or buy in a 1000 years. Everything must trickle down under captialism, its the very nature of capitalism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?

no, for the 1000th time!! A Democratic jobs bill is a tax and spend jobs bill. They take the money from the private sector thereby contracting it, then spend in the public sector thereby expanding it, so the net gain is 0 !

for the 1000th time you willl have to ignore the above because you lack the courage to face that you are too ignorant as a liberal to understand it.

Your delusions of "superior knowledge" are amusing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."

So petulant, so childish, the basis of all leftism.

Perhaps... but still, laying off millions of workers while offshoring their jobs and also while increasing executive pay by the exact amount saved by offshoring? Yeah, it's not hard to understand why the folks would not appreciate the value of the Executives' windfall bonus check apparently earned by his act of moving their job to our communist enemies.

 

[ilia25]

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."

You have problem with reading comprehension. This is not my attitude and a never said anything like this. The goal is to make the poor having more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The goal is to make the poor having more.

stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.

 

[ilia25]

rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

except its not a zero sum game.

You are right, it's not. But this is not about the poor getting poorer. It's about their incomes growing too slow, so the incomes of those already rich could grow faster.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The goal is to make the poor having more.

stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.

There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.

Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow

The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.



That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.

, fewer new jobs, fewer benefits. Why? Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.

That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.

The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.

That is not a fact -- more like a myth.

You don't understand how a market based economy works. You do however, have a firm grasp of liberal class envy talking points.
Where you got the notion that in matters economic/fiscal that less is more and that government in control of wealth equals prosperity is a God damned mystery.
Because it just ain't true.
Please reference the old USSR...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The goal is to make the poor having more.

stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.

There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.

can we conclude you believe in hand outs rather than hand ups?