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

[2aguy]

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.

If someone ripped me off they way you describe? I'd just say fuck it and shut down the business,whats the point.
And the stock holders might be a problem as well.
Who the hell is going to invest in a company with no return?

It is simply democrat magic thinking bolstered by democrat magic numbers......

 

[Arizona Willie]

You forgot to ad the " </sarcasm> " tag so the Right Wingers don't take it literally. Well actually it doesn't make a whole lot of difference because most of them don't understand sarcasm anyway.

No you dont understand. All of us should be happy the burden is shifted to us because if it was the other way around it would be wealth redistribution. AND the rich wouldnt be uber happy and its good for all of us to make sure they have all they need and get a belly rub.

 

[g5000]

Your response went into crazy land when you said the government raises EVERYONE'S RATE.

It doesn't work that way and you know it.

It takes an act of Congress to raise rates and Congressmen don't do that easily so we wind up running deficits because people aren't paying enough.

Congress does raise rates. On everyone.

In my allegory, the 5 percent hike with a $50 deficit exemplifies exactly how the system works. Higher tax rates AND deficit spending to pay for the $1.2 trillion of annual tax expenditures. This was confirmed to me this morning by a Senate staffer.

Congress will raise rates to pay for tax expenditures, but not to the point it would take to actually balance the budget, because that would be intolerable to taxpayers. So we have higher rates, just not as high as they need to be, and the rest is made up by borrowing (deficit spending).

If all tax expenditures were banned, we would have an $800 billion annual surplus. This would permit the lowering of tax rates for EVERYONE, and paying down the debt. Once the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates even further.

What's more, special interests would no longer have any incentive to donate to politicians to enact tax expenditures, so you have the serendipitous side effect of instant campaign finance reform.

Another serendipitous effect would be that your tax return would be less than a single page.

Still another serendipitous effect would be that everyone earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

 

[bedowin62]

You forgot to ad the " </sarcasm> " tag so the Right Wingers don't take it literally. Well actually it doesn't make a whole lot of difference because most of them don't understand sarcasm anyway.

No you dont understand. All of us should be happy the burden is shifted to us because if it was the other way around it would be wealth redistribution. AND the rich wouldnt be uber happy and its good for all of us to make sure they have all they need and get a belly rub.

YAWN
we understand it; you just dont understand nobody cares about your smarmy, self-impressed musings

 

[g5000]

There should be riots in the streets over this $1.2 trillion being stolen from the common man and transferred to the wealthy every year.

 

[g5000]

Whenever you hear a candidate claim that under their tax plan you will have a one page tax return or say you will be able to fill out your taxes on a postcard, they are being cowardly.

Rand Paul says this about his tax plan. So does Donald Trump. So does Ted Cruz.

And yet you have not heard any one of those cowards say they will take away all deductions, credits, and exemptions.

There is one way, and one way only, that a postcard tax return is possible. And that is by banning all tax expenditures.

All this bullshit from the candidates about different tax brackets is smoke and mirrors. Sadly, the retards cheering for these lying cowards seem to believe the reason their tax returns are so complicated is because of the number of tax brackets! HOLY SHIT!!!

The reason Cruz, Trump, Paul, et al. don't tell you they would end tax expenditures is because they know the ignorant mob would immediately lynch them.

But since they are too chickenshit to explain the necessity to the voters, they ipso facto don't have the guts it will take to make it actually happen.

Reagan had the guts. He made HUGE strides.

All his work has been undone since then, as shown by the figures I posted earlier.

 

[g5000]

Top tax bracket when Reagan took office: 70%.

Top tax bracket when Reagan left office: 28%

Reagan's 1986 tax reform eliminated a huge amount of tax expenditures.

You see, I don't have to prove I'm right. Reagan already did.

You dumbasses who think I am a liberal have been debating a Reagan Republican all these years. That's how far off the reservation the modern Right is these days.

 

[boedicca]

"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

What a load of hooey.

The economic and business illiteracy is truly Awesome to Behold.

 

[g5000]

Let us go forward with an historic reform for fairness, simplicity and incentives for growth. I am asking Secretary Don Regan for a plan for action to simplify the entire tax code, so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated more fairly. And I believe such a plan could result in that underground economy being brought into the sunlight of honest tax compliance. And it could make the tax base broader, so personal tax rates could come down, not go up. I’ve asked that specific recommendations, consistent with those objectives, be presented to me by December 1984.

Ronald Reagan: 1984 State of the Union Address

 

[g5000]

Your response went into crazy land when you said the government raises EVERYONE'S RATE.

It doesn't work that way and you know it..

Top tax bracket when Reagan took office: 70%.

Top tax bracket when Reagan left office: 28%

Reagan wiped out a lot of tax expenditures in his tax reform.

Since then tax expenditures have climbed to $1.2 trillion a year.

So what is the top tax rate now?

39.6%

So don't give me this bullshit the government doesn't raise everyone's tax rates to help pay for tax expenditures. The evidence is right in front of your face.

My allegory is sound. Built on bedrock.

 

[g5000]

The government transfers $1.2 TRILLION A YEAR from your pockets into the pockets of the already wealthy.

You think when you take a deduction that you are "getting to keep more of my own money", but you have been scammed. You are paying higher taxes because of that deduction (39.6% vs 28%), and higher home prices. Your deduction has been zeroed out. Your deduction is actually going to the guy who owns your mortgage, and your realtor, and the guy who built your house. And the real estate lobby pays Congress about $113 million a year to keep that scam going. They don't spend all that money for nothing, fools. It nets them $96 BILLION A YEAR in profit.

Sucker!

 

[Billy000]

How many times does this myth have to be debunked? Seriously? Before you run with this stuff, does it ever occur to you guys to do some fact-checking, maybe like break down and read the other side?

Now, in the '50s and early '60s, there was no Medicare tax, no needlessly costly EPA regs, no needless costly OSHA regs, and there were huge loopholes for the rich as well so they could shield much of their money from confiscatory taxation.

Do you know who else believed in taxing the rich at sky-high rates? Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, and so forth. How'd that work out?

Lol oh please that is such a feeble argument with how high the tax rate was. Even if with loopholes, less refs and the Medicare tax it would still be high. Besides, the BLS stats prove job growth is hardly affected by regulations.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nope, he still has to pay the upkeep on the mansion and yachts just like you have to keep paying your house payment.

And, once again, you don't understand illustration of principles and want to make take everything literally.

==========

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.

If a producer will only net $10,000 out of his next $100,000 of income, he has NO motivation to bother. You have it exactly backwards.

Even as an illustration....it is stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many times does this myth have to be debunked? Seriously? Before you run with this stuff, does it ever occur to you guys to do some fact-checking, maybe like break down and read the other side?

Now, in the '50s and early '60s, there was no Medicare tax, no needlessly costly EPA regs, no needless costly OSHA regs, and there were huge loopholes for the rich as well so they could shield much of their money from confiscatory taxation.

Do you know who else believed in taxing the rich at sky-high rates? Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, and so forth. How'd that work out?

Lol oh please that is such a feeble argument with how high the tax rate was. Even if with loopholes, less refs and the Medicare tax it would still be high. Besides, the BLS stats prove job growth is hardly affected by regulations.

Why don't you just admit that you are jealous of what others have.

Maybe some insulation for your cardboard box would shut you up ?

 

[Dad2three]

"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.

"I believe"


NOT based in reality however!



LBJ DID CUT TAXES, DEMAND SIDE


JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


SEE THESE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

 

[Dad2three]

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

Why don't you share the numbers.

Show us what that means in terms of the actual tax brackets.

And when do you hit 90%.

Moron, you are not taking 90% on the first million or so. Even a far left nazi tax enforcer isn't that stupid.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Oh look another far left drone spewing the far left religious dogma

The two biggest tax cuts in History came under JFK and Jimmy Carter. I doubt that any far left drone will see them as "Conservatives".

But then again neither of them would fit into todays far left controlled DNC either.

lol, JFK AND CARTER? linkie? lol

 

[Dad2three]

"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??

The one tax graph you really need to know


So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.



The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[Dad2three]

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.

LOL, You mean the ones the poor/middle class used, like CC interest? Weird right?

 

[Dad2three]

15% to 20%? HUGE difference AND which pockets it comes from right? As well as the debt created the past 34 years right?


Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics