Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
bullshit. you could take 100% of the income of the top 1% and it would run the govt for 6 months.
I get it Bubba, CONservatives HATE math. AGAIN, are you talking ONLY the top 1% OR the entire existing tax revenues AND the top 1%?
TOP 1% "MADE" NEARLY $2 TRILLION BUBS, PAID $451 BILLION TAXES, LEAVES $1.5 TRILLION TO WIPE OUT THE $450 BILLION DEFICIT THIS YEAR??
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
IT'S A REAL MATH THING BUBS, NOT RIGHT WING THING!
Skilled workers exist all around the world, even tech companies are starting to rely on cheap labor from China and India to do programming and the like. Yeah, and where they aren't regulated and taxes, the workers suffer.Hilarious, when you refer to "punishment" you do realize corporations move on their own to get the cheapest labor, that's why we need a global movement to keep these corporations in check.The reason we are having economic problems in this country are directly related to Progressive policies.
When you punish business for operating here, they go elsewhere. When you make poverty a viable option for people, they choose it. The income gap is a result of left wing policies and in true left wing dishonesty, they cause it and point their fingers elsewhere.
That isn't the only reason. Cheapest labor is only for companies that can use it. Nany companies need skilled workers and those cannot be found in Chinese sweatshops. Those companies go to where they aren't so regulated and taxed. N other words, where they don't get harshly punished.
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
Weird, you mean the past 34 years of Reaganomics hasn't benefited US YET the top 1% has quadrupled their after tax incomes AS the US debt exploded?
Reagan's reduction of tax expenditures has been undone. Hugely undone. There has been a tax expenditure added to the tax code at the average of one a day for over ten years.
Did you even bother to look at all the charts I posted earlier in this topic?
Bernie and Ted are next door neighbors. They earn identical incomes. Their combined share of the federal budget is $1000, so by all rights they should each be paying $500 in taxes.
But Ted has participated in the government behavioral control programs by purchasing the right products, and so he gets to deduct $100 from his share of the tax burden.
Now the federal government is short $100. It has only received $900 from Bernie and Ted. We have a $100 deficit.
That deficit is going to either have to be borrowed from the Fed or China, or else it will have to be made up for by raising tax rates on everyone.
That's the system we are living under. People earning identical incomes paying radically different taxes, and deductions being paid for out of other people's pockets.
That's right, boys and girls, your tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are paid for with OPM. So whenever you whine about social programs being paid for with OPM, take a look in the mirror because tax expenditures add up to TWICE what we spend on social welfare.
You are absolutely correct the government spends more than it collects.We already have progressive taxation.
Not really. It's cancelled out by tax expenditures. Look at that chart I just posted.
not completely or even close. Sure, some of those exemptions and deductions could be reduced to eliminated, but thats not the problem. The problem is that the govt spends more than it collects. Deficit spending and borrowing the shortfall has gotten us in this fiscal mess.
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.
Why is their so many ignorant fools on here in history?
Again you moron it's not 1950. Not 1960...
Europe and Asia were coming out of WWII
We didn't have the regulations we have now We didn't have the Competition we have now...
An high tax rate won't work.....
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
Weird, you mean the past 34 years of Reaganomics hasn't benefited US YET the top 1% has quadrupled their after tax incomes AS the US debt exploded?
Reagan's reduction of tax expenditures has been undone. Hugely undone. There has been a tax expenditure added to the tax code at the average of one a day for over ten years.
Did you even bother to look at all the charts I posted earlier in this topic?
You mean when Reagan gutted taxes (and revenues) on the rich while he upped taxes on the average worker? AS he upped the debt by 289%?
Yeah, they also love no safety regulations and not having to give out breaks.. Highest tax rate on businesses? Really now? Do you take into account loop holes and the actual effective rates? If we're talking about the corporate rate, I actually do want it lowered.Skilled workers exist all around the world, even tech companies are starting to rely on cheap labor from China and India to do programming and the like. Yeah, and where they aren't regulated and taxes, the workers suffer.Hilarious, when you refer to "punishment" you do realize corporations move on their own to get the cheapest labor, that's why we need a global movement to keep these corporations in check.The reason we are having economic problems in this country are directly related to Progressive policies.
When you punish business for operating here, they go elsewhere. When you make poverty a viable option for people, they choose it. The income gap is a result of left wing policies and in true left wing dishonesty, they cause it and point their fingers elsewhere.
That isn't the only reason. Cheapest labor is only for companies that can use it. Nany companies need skilled workers and those cannot be found in Chinese sweatshops. Those companies go to where they aren't so regulated and taxed. N other words, where they don't get harshly punished.
Bull. You are playing with words. I responded to his erroneous brief that the ONLY reason they are moving is for cheap labor. That is patently false.
This country has the highest tax rate on businesses in the entire world, increasing it still will punish them further and either drive more away or make it nearly impossible for people to create more business.
Starting a business in this country is already very difficult.
"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
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
correct, punishing the rich is dem/lib political talking point, devoid of any factual basis, as are most of their talking points.
You are absolutely correct the government spends more than it collects.We already have progressive taxation.
Not really. It's cancelled out by tax expenditures. Look at that chart I just posted.
not completely or even close. Sure, some of those exemptions and deductions could be reduced to eliminated, but thats not the problem. The problem is that the govt spends more than it collects. Deficit spending and borrowing the shortfall has gotten us in this fiscal mess.
It spends $1.2 trillion on tax expenditures. If we banned tax expenditures, we would have an $800 billion surplus.
Tax expenditures are the biggest expense in the budget. And yet we keep adding more and more and more.
Isn't it curious no one is demanding CUTS in tax expenditures?
It is the actual term used. I can't help it if you don't know this.You are absolutely correct the government spends more than it collects.We already have progressive taxation.
Not really. It's cancelled out by tax expenditures. Look at that chart I just posted.
not completely or even close. Sure, some of those exemptions and deductions could be reduced to eliminated, but thats not the problem. The problem is that the govt spends more than it collects. Deficit spending and borrowing the shortfall has gotten us in this fiscal mess.
It spends $1.2 trillion on tax expenditures. If we banned tax expenditures, we would have an $800 billion surplus.
Tax expenditures are the biggest expense in the budget. And yet we keep adding more and more and more.
Isn't it curious no one is demanding CUTS in tax expenditures?
I get it, but I don't agree with calling exemption and deductions "tax expenditures". that is a misleading misnomer.
The reason we are having economic problems in this country are directly related to Progressive policies.
When you punish business for operating here, they go elsewhere. When you make poverty a viable option for people, they choose it. The income gap is a result of left wing policies and in true left wing dishonesty, they cause it and point their fingers elsewhere.
I don't understand how you people can be so dimwitted."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 agree, this is a broken system, I'm curious though, if a man was making 2 million in income per year and a man 50,000 per year, what would their separate tax rates be? I can't get behind people who think taxes should all be on the same percent, that's ridiculous.Bernie and Ted are next door neighbors. They earn identical incomes. Their combined share of the federal budget is $1000, so by all rights they should each be paying $500 in taxes.
But Ted has participated in the government behavioral control programs by purchasing the right products, and so he gets to deduct $100 from his share of the tax burden.
Now the federal government is short $100. It has only received $900 from Bernie and Ted. We have a $100 deficit.
That deficit is going to either have to be borrowed from the Fed or China, or else it will have to be made up for by raising tax rates on everyone.
That's the system we are living under. People earning identical incomes paying radically different taxes, and deductions being paid for out of other people's pockets.
That's right, boys and girls, your tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are paid for with OPM. So whenever you whine about social programs being paid for with OPM, take a look in the mirror because tax expenditures add up to TWICE what we spend on social welfare.
I have never said they should be paying the same percent. I am of the same mind as Thomas Jefferson. He said taxes should be a "geometrical progression" with most people not paying taxes.I agree, this is a broken system, I'm curious though, if a man was making 2 million in income per year and a man 50,000 per year, what would their separate tax rates be? I can't get behind people who think taxes should all be on the same percent, that's ridiculous.Bernie and Ted are next door neighbors. They earn identical incomes. Their combined share of the federal budget is $1000, so by all rights they should each be paying $500 in taxes.
But Ted has participated in the government behavioral control programs by purchasing the right products, and so he gets to deduct $100 from his share of the tax burden.
Now the federal government is short $100. It has only received $900 from Bernie and Ted. We have a $100 deficit.
That deficit is going to either have to be borrowed from the Fed or China, or else it will have to be made up for by raising tax rates on everyone.
That's the system we are living under. People earning identical incomes paying radically different taxes, and deductions being paid for out of other people's pockets.
That's right, boys and girls, your tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are paid for with OPM. So whenever you whine about social programs being paid for with OPM, take a look in the mirror because tax expenditures add up to TWICE what we spend on social welfare.
That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people."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
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?
Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.
This is what I mean about the liberal solution of "tax the rich more" being completely ineffective and demonstrative of a profound ignorance of how the system really works.
If you increase the higher tax brackets, the rich will just bribe Congress to give them more tax expenditures to cancel out the higher tax rates, and we will STILL be deficit spending.
By banning tax expenditures, you make everything transparent and impossible to rig.
You level the playing field.
Marco Rubio is the only politician out there who is honest enough to say this out loud and actually put a plan on the table to mitigate it.
The others are too cowardly to shoot the hand that feeds them. They are part and parcel of this utterly corrupt system and depend on it for their campaign bread and butter.
And that's BOTH parties, boys and girls.
To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas JeffersonAnother means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.
I can see myself agreeing with you, well, I do, although I'd love to see how this applies if it were ever done, one can dream though... With most people not paying taxes, you refer to income tax, correct? And the poor I assume?I have never said they should be paying the same percent. I am of the same mind as Thomas Jefferson. He said taxes should be a "geometric progression" with most people not paying taxes.I agree, this is a broken system, I'm curious though, if a man was making 2 million in income per year and a man 50,000 per year, what would their separate tax rates be? I can't get behind people who think taxes should all be on the same percent, that's ridiculous.Bernie and Ted are next door neighbors. They earn identical incomes. Their combined share of the federal budget is $1000, so by all rights they should each be paying $500 in taxes.
But Ted has participated in the government behavioral control programs by purchasing the right products, and so he gets to deduct $100 from his share of the tax burden.
Now the federal government is short $100. It has only received $900 from Bernie and Ted. We have a $100 deficit.
That deficit is going to either have to be borrowed from the Fed or China, or else it will have to be made up for by raising tax rates on everyone.
That's the system we are living under. People earning identical incomes paying radically different taxes, and deductions being paid for out of other people's pockets.
That's right, boys and girls, your tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are paid for with OPM. So whenever you whine about social programs being paid for with OPM, take a look in the mirror because tax expenditures add up to TWICE what we spend on social welfare.
We cannot ever know the specific tax rates until we ban tax expenditures and see what revenues are collected. Then we can tweak them until we no longer have a surplus but a balanced budget.
One thing is for sure: all the brackets would be much lower than they are today.
