Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy class does NOT harm the economy

[bedowin62]

i get so tired of left-wing losers pretending to be smart!

why do people always have to remind the "forward-thinkers" that things arent the same as they were in the 1950s and 1960s???

 

[bedowin62]

no loon; the uber-wealthy do NOT have more than enough to make up for what the poor dont pay; especially taking into account what the poor take out of the system

there is NO amount of taxation that can keep pace with things the Left promises or proposes

 

[bedowin62]

Gee why don't you whine about the corporations that pay ZERO taxes or those who actually get subsidies from the government?

Oh that's just fine by you.
It's only poor people who live on the edge of starvation who should pay taxes in your view.

Most of the people who pay no Federal Income tax are very poor and live on government assistance or Social Security.

Most have incomes less than 20K which is NOT enough to support one person let alone a family in todays economy.

The government doesn't ask them to contribute because they are so poor.

The uber wealthy have more than enough to make up for what the poor don't pay.

My fondest wish for you and the other assholes like you is that you should be hit with disaster and illness and put in the situation of the people who don't pay any Fed Income Taxes and forced to live like they do the rest of your life.

============

We have at least 49% who pay no Fed taxes at all. Looks to me like they get a free ride at some one else's expense.

Perhaps that 49% should start contributing. Would be nice doncha think??

i dont whine about subsidies to the rich because i know when a left-wing nutjobs is crying about them he voted for the people that cry about them but never did away with ANY of them when they had near total control of things. and before a leftard whines the Jackass Party didnt have a big ENOUGH majority try to come up with a list of subsidies they even TRIED to end

 

[Claudette]

Gee why don't you whine about the corporations that pay ZERO taxes or those who actually get subsidies from the government?

Oh that's just fine by you.
It's only poor people who live on the edge of starvation who should pay taxes in your view.

Most of the people who pay no Federal Income tax are very poor and live on government assistance or Social Security.

Most have incomes less than 20K which is NOT enough to support one person let alone a family in todays economy.

The government doesn't ask them to contribute because they are so poor.

The uber wealthy have more than enough to make up for what the poor don't pay.

My fondest wish for you and the other assholes like you is that you should be hit with disaster and illness and put in the situation of the people who don't pay any Fed Income Taxes and forced to live like they do the rest of your life.

============

We have at least 49% who pay no Fed taxes at all. Looks to me like they get a free ride at some one else's expense.

Perhaps that 49% should start contributing. Would be nice doncha think??

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO.

Gee why don't you whine about the corporations that pay ZERO taxes or those who actually get subsidies from the government?

Oh that's just fine by you.
It's only poor people who live on the edge of starvation who should pay taxes in your view.

Most of the people who pay no Federal Income tax are very poor and live on government assistance or Social Security.

Most have incomes less than 20K which is NOT enough to support one person let alone a family in todays economy.

The government doesn't ask them to contribute because they are so poor.

The uber wealthy have more than enough to make up for what the poor don't pay.

My fondest wish for you and the other assholes like you is that you should be hit with disaster and illness and put in the situation of the people who don't pay any Fed Income Taxes and forced to live like they do the rest of your life.

============

We have at least 49% who pay no Fed taxes at all. Looks to me like they get a free ride at some one else's expense.

Perhaps that 49% should start contributing. Would be nice doncha think??

Its my fondest wish, once I get done laughing at your ridiculous post, is that you grow up.

According to you if you are poor you should just get a free ride. They shouldn't have to pay for anything. Just let every one else pay for their sorry asses.

As for the "uber" wealthy. They already pay 60% of all Fed taxes paid. They already pay their fair share.

As for companies?? Get rid of the tax loopholes and tax breaks. End of problem.

Of course that would take our wonderful politicians so fat chance of that happening.

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

I believe the sixties were better but that was because jfk did his own version of trickle down.

Trickle down is bullshit.

And so is this thread.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

The rich in this country already pay at least 60% percent of the taxes paid. How much more would you like them to pay??

We have at least 49% who pay no Fed taxes at all. Looks to me like they get a free ride at some one else's expense.

Perhaps that 49% should start contributing. Would be nice doncha think??

Yeah,

Now we are taxing the people who "don't get hurt".

Funny how the far left is all about equity, except when it comes to coughing up their money.

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing nutjobs are HILARIOUS when they rant about "trickle-down".

they want to take the rich man's money away and redistribute it to the people they pander to.
But what is that if not still a TRICKLE-DOWN form of doing things? it still would go to the almighty Government before "trickling down" to the masses.

ranting about trickle-down is just the melon-headed Progressive double-speak of getting their legions of lemming true believers to agree to divide the country more than it already is and give the green light to the government to take people's hard-earned wealth away and EMPOWER THEMSELVES, more than it is out of a genuine compassion to help poor people and/or people of color.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Brain357]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

That is simply stupid.

There is no proof of anything.

Look at history and what built America, China and modern europe. It certainly wasn't your kiss assing with the nobality that did it.

All this growing inequality has gotten us a slow economy, stagnant wages, and more government dependence.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

That is simply stupid.

There is no proof of anything.

Look at history and what built America, China and modern europe. It certainly wasn't your kiss assing with the nobality that did it.

All this growing inequality has gotten us a slow economy, stagnant wages, and more government dependence.

These are great campaign statements.

I actually happen to think there is some relationship here, but it is more sophisticated than Hilllary Clinton would ever understand.

When you can make that case, I'll be impressed. Until then, you are nothing but Fox News on the other side.

 

[Brain357]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

That is simply stupid.

There is no proof of anything.

Look at history and what built America, China and modern europe. It certainly wasn't your kiss assing with the nobality that did it.

All this growing inequality has gotten us a slow economy, stagnant wages, and more government dependence.

These are great campaign statements.

I actually happen to think there is some relationship here, but it is more sophisticated than Hilllary Clinton would ever understand.

When you can make that case, I'll be impressed. Until then, you are nothing but Fox News on the other side.

Republicans need to decide that small government is more important than growing inequality. Would do a lot for our economy.

 

[Billy000]

left-wing nutjobs are HILARIOUS when they rant about "trickle-down".

they want to take the rich man's money away and redistribute it to the people they pander to.
But what is that if not still a TRICKLE-DOWN form of doing things? it still would go to the almighty Government before "trickling down" to the masses.

ranting about trickle-down is just the melon-headed Progressive double-speak of getting their legions of lemming true believers to agree to divide the country more than it already is and give the green light to the government to take people's hard-earned wealth away and EMPOWER THEMSELVES, more than it is out of a genuine compassion to help poor people and/or people of color.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Obama said "redistribute the wealth" to a damn plumber and you people have not stopped bitching about it despite the fact that it has no basis in any of his policies. Yeah no shit raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't boost the wealth of the lower classes. No one ever said that you dweeb. Raising their taxes is about being able to adequately pay for our nation's expenses.

It's such a lame cop out when you people say we oppose trickle down because we are jealous of the top earners. Trickle down is bullshit Because it doesn't work. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy don't do jack shit to stimulate wide economic growth. The pathetic job growth under Bush proves that.

 

[g5000]

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

The mortgage interest deduction should go away. It is a giant scam which steals almost $100 billion a year from the pockets of the common man and transfers it to the rich.

Reagan definitely had the right idea by eliminating as many tax expenditures as he could.

 

[g5000]

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

That is not how a 90 percent top tax rate works, bozo.

 

[g5000]

 

[g5000]

 

[g5000]

 

[g5000]

Unlike Figure 2, Figure 3 is reported using current dollars (not adjusted for inflation). As a result, comparisons using Figure 3 should be made based upon the relative distance between the levels of tax expenditures and spending over the time period. For example, in 1974 the levels of tax expenditures and discretionary defense spending were roughly comparable. In contrast, the same comparison in 2014 reveals the size of tax expenditures being roughly double the size of discretionary defense spending.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44012.pdf

 

[Arizona Willie]

Would you mind explaning ( show your work ) how the mortgage interest deduction transfers money from me to a multi-millionaire?

Reagan will go down in history as one of the biggest TRAITORS this nation ever had ... along with Kissinger.

==========

The mortgage interest deduction should go away. It is a giant scam which steals almost $100 billion a year from the pockets of the common man and transfers it to the rich.

Reagan definitely had the right idea by eliminating as many tax expenditures as he could.

 

[Arizona Willie]

If he is making 100 million a year he WOULD be paying the 90% rate on income ABOVE a certain level.
But his taxes are indeed progressive as his income goes up the scale.
The more he makes the more he pays in taxes ( unless he is a cheating Republican ).

The numbers I used were not meant to be literal but to show the general principle and I think most people were smart enough to understand that.

And then there's g5000.

Oh well

============

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

That is not how a 90 percent top tax rate works, bozo.

 

[g5000]

Would you mind explaning ( show your work ) how the mortgage interest deduction transfers money from me to a multi-millionaire?

I've done it countless times on this forum.

An allegory:

Bernie and Ted earn identical incomes.

Bernie and Ted's fair share of the federal budget is $1000. This means Bernie and Ted are each responsible for $500 at tax time.

But wait! Ted bought the right kind of refrigerator the government wanted him to buy. He gets a tax deduction! Ted also bought other government-approved products. Because that is what tax expenditures are: A massive government behavioral control program.

Ted's tax burden is now $400 instead of $500, thanks to tax expenditures awarded to him. "Woo hoo!", exclaims Ted, "I get to keep more of my own money!"

But Ted is wrong.

Since the federal tax burden for Ted and Bernie is $1000, and Ted is only paying $400 and Bernie is paying $500, tax revenues are going to come up $100 short. There will be a $100 deficit due to Ted's tax expenditures.

What to do...what to do...

So the government raises everyone's tax rates by 5 percent.

Now Bernie owes $525, and Ted owes $425 ($525 - $100 deduction).

Has Ted really saved $100? Nope. His taxes are only $75 lower now, and Bernies are $25 more. And their total tax payment is still $50 short of the goal of $1000.

After the 5% tax hike, Ted's $100 deduction is paid for by each of them paying $25 more, plus a $50 deficit.

And that is how our current tax structure is actually managed, boys and girls. We have this ridiculous system whereby two people earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes, and we have a budget deficit. And everyone's tax rates are higher than they would be.

And the rube with the deductions isn't getting as much as he thinks he is.

Now along comes a deficit hawk who wants a balanced budget. And so taxes are raised 10%.

Now Bernie is paying $550 instead of the original $500. And Ted is paying $450 (after taking out his deduction).

We now have a balanced budget. But look. Ted's $100 deduction has really only netted him $50. And where did that $50 come from? It came out of Bernie's pocket!

And this is why tax expenditures are no different than food stamps or Obamaphones. Someone else has to pay for them with higher tax rates. And you aren't making out as much as you think you are.

But wait! It gets worse!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...erest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

One widely cited 1996 study by Dennis Capozza, Richard Green, and Patric Hendershott estimated that eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deductions would reduce housing prices in the short term by an average of 13 percent nationwide, with regional changes ranging from 8 to 27 percent.

Mortgage Interest Deduction: $484 billion

The MID cost taxpayers $484 billion between 2010-2014.

Guess how much the budget deficit was for 2014?

$483 billion.

And that is just ONE tax expenditure, kids.

The Real Estate special interests spent $26,723,151 on House campaign contributions, $11,255,447 on Senate campaign contributions, and $95,563,540 on lobbying in 2014, for a total of $133,542,138.

They didn't spend that money for nothing, boys and girls. It netted them a profit of $96 billion, every penny of which came out of YOUR pockets.